Alyza Lewin - Brandeis Center

Op-ed authored by Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and published in New York Sun on 5/18/23.

May is Jewish American Heritage Month, and President Biden is in a pickle. Call it a kosher dill.

Mr. Biden has acknowledged that “antisemitic incidents are at a record high.” Describing physical assaults on Jewish Americans and harassment of Jewish students, Mr. Biden observed, “It’s unconscionable. It’s almost unbelievable. It’s despicable.” He calls antisemitism today “a stain on the soul of America.”

Mr. Biden is describing America during his own administration. He is describing crimes committed under his watch. The question is: What will he do about it?

During Tuesday’s White House celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month, Mr. Biden promised his Jewish supporters that he would deliver a “national strategy to counter antisemitism” that would be “the most ambitious, comprehensive effort in our history to combat antisemitism in America.”

This sounds grand. But there’s a fly in the ointment. We know that there’s a problem, because if Mr. Biden’s policy team were working smoothly, he would have announced the plan during Tuesday’s White House ceremony.

Symbolically and politically, that would have been the right move, unless Biden were struggling. And we know why he is struggling. The problem is his base. The political fault-line in the Democratic Party runs right down the middle of the Biden antisemitism plan.

Mr. Biden is on strong political ground when it comes to right-wing antisemitism. He has been good about condemning neo-Nazis. At a Howard University commencement address on Saturday, Mr. Biden called white supremacy “the most dangerous terrorist threat” to the American homeland. His base will always applaud Mr. Biden when he condemns prejudice on the right.

They are not so united when it comes to antisemitism on the left. Just last week, as hundreds of rockets were fired at Israel by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Representative Rashida Tlaib hosted, with support from Senator Sanders, a “Nakba Day” event that condemns the establishment of the State of Israel as a “catastrophe.”

At the same time, Ms. Tlaib introduced a resolution for the United States to formally recognize that the establishment of the Jewish State was such a catastrophe. It is inconceivable that members of Congress would treat any other nation or people in this way — especially one under violent attack by a designated terrorist organization. And yet Ms. Tlaib’s actions reflect the perspective of a significant part of the Democratic base.

Mr. Biden’s challenge is to address left-wing antisemitism when extreme anti-Zionism is now espoused by left-wing congressional Democrats. Mr. Biden cannot issue a national plan that merely weaponizes antisemitism charges against Democrats’ political adversaries.

It is now too obvious that this bigotry has grown at both extremes of political opinion. If Mr. Biden fails to address bias on both sides, it will become obvious that he is exploiting anti-Jewish hatred for political purposes. He needs to address antisemitism across the board. And that’s where the politics get hairy.

Although Mr. Biden’s plan will include more than 200 policy plans and proposals, there is one that matters most: definitions. His mainstream Jewish supporters, who reside on the center-left, want a strong national plan. This can mean a lot of things, but it means one thing most of all.

The organized Jewish community want the plan to be based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of antisemitism, which is the only definition that encapsulates antisemitism from the right and the left, including when criticism of Israel crosses the line into antisemitism.

That is why this is the definition of antisemitism embraced as the gold standard by most American states, dozens of nations, and is the cornerstone of the EU’s landmark strategy for addressing antisemitism.

Most importantly, the organized Jewish community has also made clear they want the plan to avoid any reference — not even a footnote — to the diluted alternatives, such as the left-wing Jerusalem and Nexus definitions. On Wednesday, the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt, for example, admonished that “no other definitions work.”

At the same time, Mr. Biden’s hard-left supporters despise this internationally agreed-upon definition. They prefer it be omitted because it exposes the discriminatory basis for the demonization and delegitimization of Israel.

Such disclosures infuriate anti-Zionist activists, because their own attacks on Israel are tinged with bias. As a fall back, if Mr. Biden’s plan is based on this definition, these activists would like the plan to elevate other definitions as well.

To legitimize the definitions meant to mask antisemitism from the left, however, would be viewed as a betrayal of the Jewish community, including Mr. Biden’s center-left supporters, and undermine his entire plan.

The resolution to this drama is coming fast. On Wednesday, the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, told Jewish Insider that the Biden plan could be released “in the next few days” or “next week.” That could be good news. Or it could be very bad.

The best-case scenario is that Mr. Biden’s plan is as strong as the European Commission’s antisemitism strategy, which uses the international working definition. The next-best alternative is that it contains no definition of antisemitism whatsoever. This would be seen as weak and cowardly, but at least it would not undermine efforts to address antisemitism elsewhere.

The worst-case scenario would be for the plan to mention one of the more controversial alternative standards supported by the far left, undermining international efforts to coalesce behind a single standard. That result, to be sure, would be the real catastrophe.

Op-ed authored by Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and published in Washington Examiner on May 18, 2023.

White House domestic policy adviser Susan Rice announced that the Biden White House is “aiming to release” its national strategy on antisemitism later this month. Expectations are appropriately high: President Joe Biden has suggested multiple times that antisemitism at the 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, motivated his decision to run for president. And he has since pledged that he would “not remain silent in the face of this antisemitic venom, vitriol, and violence.” With antisemitism skyrocketing across the United States, getting this right could not be more important.

Jewish Americans make up just 2% of the U.S. populace, but according to the latest FBI statistics, Jews have been targeted more than all other religious groups combined. The Anti-Defamation League recently reported the highest number of annual Jewish hate crimes on record since it began tracking antisemitic incidents in 1979.

Given these threats, it’s understandable that Biden’s Jewish supporters are preparing to applaud the White House plan. Until they know its contents, however, they would be wise to withhold applause. The plan has potential, but it could be a major flop. Its success or failure will depend on three things.

The first is whether it fully adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA’s definition has been adopted by over 30 nations and more than half of U.S. states. It is the indispensable cornerstone of any meaningful approach to addressing the contemporary forms that antisemitism takes in the U.S. and throughout the world.

Embracing the IHRA definition should be easy. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has stated that the Biden administration “enthusiastically embraces” it. While some on the far Left have opposed the IHRA definition, the Biden administration would be wise to avoid their counsel.

The Biden plan will succeed only if it is demonstrably bipartisan. The IHRA definition is supported by both Democrats and Republicans of every political persuasion. Making the IHRA definition the centerpiece of the Biden plan would signal that Biden intends to address antisemitism on both the Left and the Right. Failure to do so would send a very different signal about his intentions. It would also indicate a basic lack of seriousness.

Our European allies understand that the IHRA definition is necessary in the fight against antisemitism. In 2021, the European Commission wisely made the IHRA definition the linchpin of the European Union’s landmark strategic plan on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life. The European Union’s plan recognized that the IHRA is “the benchmark” for a human rights-based approach to antisemitism. The commission even went further and issued an important Handbook for the Practical Use of the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism, which provides specific examples on how that tool can best be used in the European context.

Two years later, it would be downright embarrassing if the American plan failed to meet the European standard. A Biden plan that lacks the IHRA’s definition would be two years late and a euro short.

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 last question is whether the plan will have teeth. For the Biden plan to be useful, it must have, as Elvis sang, “a little less conversation, a little more action, please.” In the face of historic levels of college-based antisemitism, Biden recently acknowledged that “we have witnessed,” under his watch, “Jewish students harassed on college campuses.” While it is good that Biden recognizes this, he must do more than “witness.” He must take action.

White House officials know what they need to do. The White House has repeatedly committed to issuing a rule codifying the Executing Order on Combating Anti-Semitism ( E.O 13899 ). That order confirms Jewish students’ rights under the Civil Rights Act and provides that officials will use the IHRA definition where appropriate. This proposed rule, although repeatedly delayed , would be an enforceable rule with the force of law, providing federal officials with constitutionally-circumscribed methods of ensuring that colleges and universities comply with anti-discrimination law.

It is not an encouraging sign that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which has been working on this rule for more than two years, failed even to mention it this month in its newly issued annual report to Congress.

If Biden is genuine in his professed commitment to address antisemitism, he cannot just make plans. He cannot just “witness.” He cannot just “not remain silent.” He must take action. He must adopt the IHRA’s definition in both his plans and his actions. He must issue a plan against antisemitism that is no less robust than the European Commission’s, and he must follow it up with prompt action. His first action should be to issue the Education Department’s long-delayed rule on combating campus antisemitism without further delay.

Op-ed authored by Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and published in Newsweek on 5/14/23.

In just two days this week, Palestinian militants have fired nearly 800 rockets at Israel, some of which have hit populated areas. The Israeli Defense Force has responded with airstrikes against rocket-launching squads and other military sites operated by Islamic Jihad, as well as killing at least three Islamic Jihad commanders and their families.
.
A senior United Nations official, Tor Wennesland, immediately condemned this as “unacceptable.” Wennesland could not have been more right. The firing of 800 rockets at populated areas, with no apparent effort to avoid civilian targets, could properly be categorized as a war crime under international law.
.
The problem is that Mr. Wennesland did not have any of those 800 rockets in mind, not even the ones that hit civilian areas.
.
Mr. Wennesland overlooked all 800 rockets—quite a large number to overlook—and focused his condemnation only on the people at whom the rockets were fired. In other words, he condemned only Israelis, without bothering to provide even a semblance of balance. And he did so, not as a Palestinian activist, but in his capacity as Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process.
.
Among supporters of Israel, Wennesland’s statement comes as no surprise. Wennesland had previously stoked controversy by expressing sympathy for a terrorist who attacked an Israeli police officer and stabbed him.
.
To be fair, there are some who will support Wennesland’s position. After all, Israel’s airstrikes have killed several people in Gaza. By contrast, the militants’ rockets have so far reportedly killed only a single Israeli. Some people will argue, therefore, that Israel’s response has been “disproportionate.”
.
And not just some people. Francesca Albanese, a senior United Nations colleague of Wennesland’s, has made precisely this claim. Here is Albanese’s assessment: “Israel’s last night operation in Gaza, violating the August truce, killed 14, incl. 4 children and 3 PIJ operatives. Int’l law allows force only in response to armed attacks. Bombing residential buildings at night appears disproportionate and indiscriminate.”
.
Indeed, Albanese went further, claiming that Israel’s “disproportionate” response is a “possible war crime.” Albanese’s words carry weight, since she is the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.
.
And yet, Albanese could not be more wrong. Albanese has long been a controversial figure herself. Earlier this year, 18 members of the U.S. House of Representatives urged the United Nations to fire her, based on her perceived antisemitism and “strong bias against Israel.” The members of Congress also criticized Albanese’s persistent failure to condemn deadly terrorist attacks against Israel. And that was before this week’s development. But that’s not all that’s wrong with Albanese’s claim.
.
The problem with Albanese’s assessment is not merely that she ignores the 800 rockets to which Israel was responding. Nor is it just that she ignores the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s history of violence (including the reported participation of three killed Islamic Jihad commanders in plans to kill Israelis), or the fact that the United States classifies it as a terrorist organization. It is rather that she ignores international humanitarian law.
.
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. 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.
.
In this case, preliminary reports indicate that Israel’s military objectives are concrete, direct, and substantial. The Israeli Defense Force is reportedly targeting rocket-launching infrastructure across the Gaza strip, as well as Islamic Jihad members who have been preparing rockets to be launched. These are legitimate military targets, and the anticipated military advantage could not be greater: the IDF, if these reports are true, is foiling attacks on Israeli civilian populations.
.
By contrast, initial reports suggest that it is, in fact, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad that may be engaged in war crimes. The Islamic Jihad appears to be indiscriminately firing its rockets at civilian populations. This has been a longstanding practice among Gazan militants. Such attacks terrorize civilians without serving any legitimate military objective. Civilians, it should be emphasized, enjoy absolute protection from being targeted. It is Islamic Jihad’s rocket attack that would be considered “disproportionate” under international law, to the extent that it lacks a clear and direct military objective.
.
Some reports suggest that Israel and Islamic Jihad may (or may not) be entering into a truce. Regardless, there is no truce in sight between Israel and its United Nations antagonists. At this moment of anguish, it serves no one for the United Nations, of all institutions, to fan the flames of violence by issuing one-sided condemnations. It is worse still when senior officials distort international law to make claims that are diametrically opposed to the truth.

Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus was a featured speaker during the Combat Antisemitism Movement’s May 2, 2023 online symposium: “A Winning Tool: How the IHRA Definition Has Transformed the Fight Against Antisemitism.”

The event highlighted the vital importance of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism — and promoted its continued growth and implementation. Along with Chairman Marcus, the forum featured representatives of entities that have adopted the definition — from the U.S. (Representative Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey; Tennessee Governor Bill Lee) to Australia (Glen Eira City Councilmember Margaret Esakoff) to Europe (Vice President of the European Parliament Nicola Beer; Mayor of Tirana, Albania Erion Veliaj). These officials shared why they chose to adopt the IHRA Definition and how this positively impacted their work and society as a whole.

Chairman Marcus spoke about how all U.S. colleges and universities are, in fact, bound by the IHRA Definition, whether or not they have chosen to formally adopt it. That is because higher education institutions that accept federal funding (which includes almost all U.S. colleges and universities) sign assurances that they will comply with applicable federal legislation, regulations, and executive orders. These include not only Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but also Executive Order 13899, which since 2019 has included the IHRA Definition (including its examples) and directs campus administrators to consider the definition when evaluating claims of anti-Semitic bias.

View Chairman Marcus’s address below.

Published 5/4/23 by Jewish Journal. Story by Aaron Bandler.

The Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) Board of Education approved two ethnic studies courses that Jewish groups say contain anti-Israel bias.

The course, titled “Ethnic Studies: World Geography,” passed by a margin of three votes in favor and one abstention; the other, “History 10 Ethnic Studies World Histories Course,” passed unanimously. StandWithUs alleged that the former course “promotes bias and bigotry against Israel and the Jewish people” and the latter “includes at least one book that promotes similar bias.” Unit 2 of the geography course, titled “Colonialism’s Impact on Migration,” states: “The concept of migration will be introduced and focus on the avenues through which colonial empires have maintained hegemonic influence over flows of migration within nations and internationally around the globe through genocides, tourism, wars, neocolonialism and settler colonialism.” It then provides several links to supplemental material, one of which is a January 2020 Middle East Monitor op-ed claiming that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has resulted “a massive wave of ethnic cleansing that saw the forced removal of approximately 300,000 Palestinians from the newly-conquered territory.”

The op-ed particularly focused on Israeli military “firing zones” in the West Bank that have “ethnically cleansed Palestinians” and suffocated “the Palestinian way of life,” arguing that the sole purpose of these firing zones is to provide “an Israeli legal justification to confiscate nearly a fifth of the West Bank for future colonial expansion.” The op-ed cites the Palestinian villages of Masafer Yatta in the South Hebron Hills as an example of this. Left unsaid in the op-ed is that there has been a legal dispute between the Palestinians and Israelis since 2000 on whether or not the Palestinian were permanent residents when the area was declared a firing zone––which Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) defined as a “firearms training ground”––in the 1980s, as Israeli law provides the military with the authority to declare an area a firing zone if the residents are temporary. In May 2022, the Israeli High Court of Justice unanimously ruled in favor of the Israelis, although JTA noted that that the United Nations, European Union, the Biden administration, some members of Congress and some Jewish groups were urging the Israeli government not to pursue further demolitions and evictions regardless.

The course then provides a list of “essential questions” about “European colonialism” and “American hegemonic actions” as well as the following question about Israel: “How has the settlement of Israelis after WWII changed the socio-economic status and sovereignty of Palestinians over time?”

Unit 4 of the course, titled “How Political Geography Marginalizes Minority Groups,” discusses “how the distortion of arbitrary geographic borders by Western colonial powers has caused famines, political corruption, and internal and external strife for first nations.” The unit includes a critique of “the plan by the United Nations to divide Palestine between Jewish and Palestinians areas” and “state sanctioned violence against Palestinians, Rwandans, and Kurds will be placed in their proper context as consequences of European imperial nation-making.” The unit also focuses on how the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip has affected Palestinians, providing a link to a video in the supplemental materials section on how it has adversely affected Palestinian fisherman in Gaza. Though the video acknowledges that the blockade is in response to Hamas, the terror group that rules Gaza, it doesn’t mention that, according to The Washington Institute, “Iran and Hezbollah have also smuggled weapons and rocket manufacturing materiel by sea, evading the Israeli blockade by dropping floatable items for Palestinian fishermen to pick up near the Gaza coast.”

“The World Geography course outline accuses Israel of state sanctioned violence against Palestinians, falsely framing Israel’s legitimate defense of its citizens against terrorism,” Jany Finkielsztein, a researcher for the CAMERA Education Institute, said in a statement to the Journal. “The Santa Ana School Board approved the Ethnic Studies World Geography course outline with clear evidence of its anti-Israel slant. CAMERA is alarmed by the upsurge in attempts to embed anti-Israel content into social studies courses.”

As for the World History course, the book referenced by StandWithUs is sociologist Michael Mann’s 2004 book“The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing,” which will be used for teacher reference. Mann calls Israel “the main contemporary example of settler-conquerors,” arguing in the book that “for half a centuryIsraelis have been cleansing the occupied territories of native Arabs, most murderously in the late 1940s, renewed again in the Jewish landgrabbing of the past few years. Israelis have mainly cleansed within their own occupied territories, devising the typical settler state: democracy for the settlers, lesser rights for the natives.”

“The ethnic studies courses approved by SAUSD’s board falsely portray Jews as colonizers in Israel, erasing 3,000 years of their history and connection to their ancestral home,” StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein said in a statement. “They cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a deeply one-sided and inaccurate way, and completely ignore Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from Arab states and Iran. This violates the spirit, if not the letter, of California law regarding K-12 ethnic studies, as well as SAUSD policy about how to teach controversial issues.”

Simon Wiesenthal Center Associate Dean and Director of Global Social Action Agenda Rabbi Abraham Cooper said in a statement, “Perhaps the SAUSD is unaware that this curriculum masks its anti-Jewish and extreme anti-Israel propaganda as historical fact. American Jews across the US are the #1 target of religious-based hate crimes according to the FBI. We cannot have young impressionable students indoctrinated to such biases, distortions, omissions and lies about the Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel.”

AMCHA Initiative Director Tammi Rossman-Benjamin similarly said in a statement to the Journal, “It is really a shame that California school districts are rushing to approve biased and bigoted curricula that will only serve to spread further hate, division and antisemitism among students throughout the state when it appears that the law mandating that such curricula be taught is not now, and may never be, operative. Unfortunately, school districts don’t know this yet. They are being misled into thinking they must act quickly to abide by the law by groups like the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Coalition, whose anti-Zionist educator activists are ideologically and financially motivated to ensure their curricular development and professional training services are widely adopted. But in fact, school districts do not have to, and should not move forward with costly, divisive, and bigoted ethnic studies programs unless and until the state legislature makes this bill operative.”

Rachel Lerman, general counsel and vice chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told the Journal, “We suspect that Santa Ana’s curricula embraces the discredited antisemitic ideologies that were contained in the rejected first draft of California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum. We are currently investigating. 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.”

The board did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.

Published by The Daily Californian on 5/4/23. Story by Rae Wymer.

In 2022, UC Berkeley received almost 3,000 information and record requests through the California Public Records Act, or CPRA, handled by a staff of two, according to campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof.

On April 26, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit alleging that campus had failed to fulfill its legal responsibilities to make its records “promptly available” for public review.

“We want a full understanding of what the situation is before we do anything about it,” said Rachel Lerman, general counsel for the Brandeis Center. “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.

This lawsuit comes after the Brandeis Center filed three CPRA requests for access to documents relating to antisemitism and Zionism. These included documents relating to the adoption of a Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine bylaw which stated they would not host, sponsor or promote speakers who support Zionism. The bylaw was also adopted by several other registered student organizations on campus. The first such request was made in December 2022.

Additionally, the Brandeis Center requested writings and discussions by Berkeley Law administrators, Berkeley Law offices and UC Berkeley’s Office of the Chancellor from Aug. 1, 2022 to the date the request is fulfilled, specifically those that relate to this bylaw.

According to the lawsuit case file, the Center also requested access to all records and writings from the ASUC relating to the Feb. 6 and Feb. 15 ASUC Senate meetings discussing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.

Campus claimed that the CPRA request pertains to thousands of documents but shared only a copy of a single email chain by Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and respondents, Lerman said.

She alleged the Center believes campus may be withholding documents, using the number of documents as an excuse, adding that it is not uncommon to file a lawsuit after submitting a CPRA request against a government organization or public university to force them to fulfill the request in a complete and timely manner.

In response to these allegations, Mogulof said campus believes they are, however, adequately responding to the Center’s request and are taking it seriously, emphasizing the broad nature of the request that, as Mogulof noted, would require searching through thousands of records.

“We believe the campus is complying with its obligation to respond to the requests from the Brandeis Center, which initially requested the production of thousands of documents,” Mogulof said in an email. “We will continue to do so, irrespective of the filing of the lawsuit.”

However, the Center has already narrowed the scope of their request, Lerman noted. Mogulof added that campus is continuing to work with the Brandeis Center to narrow the requests further.

Mogulof said campus disagrees with the allegations of the lawsuit and claims it has fulfilled its legal responsibilities. He added that campus is not withholding any documents that they are required to provide and “always complies” with public records law.

Despite campus’s assertion of their legal compliance, Lerman said the Center had hoped that by modifying their request, they would receive the information they sought without needing to resort to legal action.

“We were hoping that by narrowing the request and doing what they asked we would get the correct response without filing the lawsuit,” Lerman said. “After we made three requests it reached a point where we felt we had to do something.”

Some of the records requested by the Brandeis Center, such as the ASUC’s records, are not accessible by campus, Mogulof noted. He added that as in accordance with the law campus will acknowledge and send an initial response to any CPRA request within the 10-day limit, but there is no standard amount of time needed to procure the actual records requested.

While campus aims to provide records as quickly as possible, the amount of time needed depends on the quantity of records, the number of people who possess requested records and other factors, Mogulof added.

Still, according to Lerman, the Brandeis Center was “frustrated” with the communication received from campus and the lengthy timeline for a campus response.

“I’m hoping that we can work things out with them and get the documents,” Lerman said.

In honor of Jewish American Heritage Month, which is celebrated during the month of May, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and President Alyza D. Lewin addressed a Congressional breakfast on Thursday, April 27^th, sponsored by Combat Anti-Semitism Movement (CAM). The bipartisan event sought to highlight the accomplishments of the American Jewish community while also bringing attention to a rise in anti-Semitism across the country. National leaders came together to discuss security threats against the Jewish community, interfaith relations, campus anti-Semitism, and implementation of the IHRA Working Definition.

In a panel titled “Understanding Threats to Jewish-American Life: Challenges of Antisemitism Today,” Lewin spoke about the challenges the younger generation of Jewish Americans currently face. She explained how contemporary anti-Semitism has become pervasive on American university campuses, targeting Jewish students who have received little support from administrators. While university administrators can usually identify classic, traditional acts of anti-Semitism – such as swastikas being carved into Hillel buildings and mezuzahs being ripped down in dorm halls – they are unable to identify a more modern, insidious form of anti-Semitism which frequently manifests itself as anti-Zionism. University leaders mistakenly view anti-Zionism as a political issue that warrants no intervention. Unfortunately, Jewish students face civil rights abuses, as they are forced to hide their identity and stay silent or else face social and academic ramifications on campus. Lewin cited recent examples of students being penalized for their Jewish heritage: exclusion from a sexual assault support group at SUNY New Paltz, efforts to impeach a Zionist student body vice-president at USC, and passage of discriminatory bylaws by Berkeley Law School.

Lewin explained how anti-Semitism has morphed over the years, necessitating immediate education for campus leaders. Without an understanding of how Israel is an integral part of a Jewish American’s ethnic, ancestral, cultural, and religious identity, those who are supposed to protect and promote students’ civil rights are left in the dark. Lewin stated, “What we really want is to make sure that Jews in America and around the world are able to celebrate our ancestral and ethnic heritage – freely and with pride. We should be able to fully engage in society without having to hide who we are.”

In a panel titled “Implementing the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism: The Mainstream Tool to Combat Contemporary Antisemitism,” Marcus highlighted the benefits of having an internationally recognized, gold-standard definition of anti-Semitism. The IHRA Working Definition is the only internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism, adopted by over 40 counties and by both Republican and Democrat administrations in the United States. Marcus cited the significant historical expertise that went into creating the Definition and the importance of being able to compare data across multiple jurisdictions. Having constancy, he explained, is crucial in the fight against Jew-hatred on both sides of the political spectrum.

While the debate around IHRA adoption continues, Marcus pointed out that many institutions are already legally responsible for addressing certain anti-Semitic incidents as defined by IHRA under E.O. 13899. E.O. 13899 ensures the robust enforcement of Title VI by mandating all executive departments and agencies to consider the IHRA Working Definition and its “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism.” For example, the IHRA Definition must be used as a means of evaluating alleged anti-Semitic conduct on university campuses. By using clear, plain language that any leader, political or academic, can follow, anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish Americans can be identified and remedied. Marcus said, “Where there’s a question of identifying what is and what is not anti-Semitism, there is no substitute for IHRA.”

Marcus pointed out that in an era where American Jews should be celebrating their accomplishments in the United States Capitol, countless community leaders, organizations, and Congress members are forced instead to speak on the pressing issue of rising anti-Semitism. With May being Jewish American Heritage Month, the Brandeis Center commends the Counter Anti-Semitism Movement’s bipartisan efforts to defeat anti-Semitism.

Congressional speakers included Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX), Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA), Rep. Tom Keane (R-NJ), Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL) and Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY). Other speakers included Former US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Elan Carr, CEO of B’nai B’rith International Dan Mariaschin, and Very Rev. Dr. Mark M. Morozowich.

To watch Lewin’s full remarks, click here.

To watch Marcus’ full remarks, click here.

Published by The Algemeiner on 4/27/23; story by Andrew Bernard.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Thursday signed a bill described by one of its co-sponsors as “the strongest antisemitism bill in the United States.”

DeSantis signed the bill, HB 269, from Jerusalem’s Museum of Tolerance as part of an international trade mission that has included visits to Japan, South Korea and Israel, and that will conclude in the United Kingdom.

Described as a counter to “public nuisances,” the bill specifically prohibits certain forms of littering, harassment or intimidation based on religious heritage, the projection of images onto buildings without the owner’s permission, and the malicious disruption of a school or religious assembly.

Many of these “nuisances” are used as tactics by the so-called “Goyim Defense League” of neo-Nazis and other hate groups that have conducted campaigns of antisemitic leaflet littering, used projectors to superimpose antisemitic messages on buildings, and hung neo-Nazi banners on highway overpasses.

Speaking at press conference before the signing on Thursday, DeSantis emphasized the difference between protected speech under the First Amendment and the bigoted harassment that HB 269 is intended to counter.

“In the United States, you have a constitutionally protected right to say whatever you want, no matter how distasteful it is, no matter how hateful it is,” DeSantis said. “But you don’t have a right to threaten people, you don’t have a right to harass people, you don’t have a right to intimidate somebody, particularly on the basis of somebody’s religious affiliation.”

One of the co-sponsors of the bill, Rep. Randy Fine (R), told The Algemeiner in March that he was spurred to action by the outbreak of antisemitic activity in Florida.

“Nazis are not welcome in Florida,” he said. “The behavior they’re using to terrorize, intimidate, and assault Jewish Floridians is going to come to an end.”

Fine, who traveled to Israel for the signing, wrote on Twitter Thursday that HB 269 was “the strongest antisemitism bill in the United States.”

“To Florida’s Nazi thugs, I have news: attack Jews on their property and you’re going to prison,” he said.

Kenneth L. Marcus, the founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which provided constitutional and legal analysis to Florida’s Jewish community in support of the bill, welcomed the signing of the legislation on Thursday.

“We are now seeing a resurgence of right-wing hate crimes in the streets, just as we are seeing left-wing antisemitism growing on the campuses,” Marcus said. “All forms of antisemitism must be fought, through all available legal means, and we are pleased that this legislation will provide us with important additional tools to do so in Florida, as we continue to fight this scourge throughout the country.”

Antisemitic incidents in the United States increased 36 percent in 2022, according to an annual audit issued by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in March.

The ADL recorded 3,697 incidents — ten per day — across the US, the highest ever since the group began track them in 1979. Incidents of harassment, vandalism, and assault all spiked by double digits and occurred most frequently in New York, California, New Jersey, Florida, and Texas, which accounted for 54 percent of the ADL’s data. New York had the most, with 580 incidents. One incident resulted in a fatality.

In response to a Brandeis Center complaint regarding anti-Zionist harassment and discrimination at the University of Vermont (UVM), the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced a milestone Resolution Agreement requiring UVM recognize and address anti-Semitic discrimination that manifests as (takes the form of) national origin discrimination based on shared ancestry. LDB submitted a formal regulatory comment urging ED to retain a rule that upholds free speech on campus. And the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on an important religious liberty case in which the Brandeis Center filed a friend of the court brief.

Brandeis Center Commends ED for Milestone Anti-Semitism Resolution

ED announced that the University of Vermont (UVM) failed to respond to numerous complaints of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination. In a Resolution Letter and Agreement, the ED Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found that the university had not properly investigated “serious allegations of harassment” and “delayed” taking “responsive steps,” effectively “discouraging” students and staff from reporting anti-Semitic incidents in the future.

“What [my OCR successor, Assistant Secretary of Education Catherine Lhamon] has…done is to signal to the higher education community that Jewish students must be given the same protections as any other group, including when they face harassment based on a Zionist identity,” declared Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus in a formal statement. “We are thankful that OCR, under Ms. Lhamon, has sent a strong message to colleges and universities: they must not tolerate anti-Semitism. If they do, they will be held accountable.

“The UVM resolution agreement, in a case involving primarily anti-Zionist harassment and discrimination, is not only significant, it is historic and precedent-setting,” affirmed Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin. “It demonstrates that OCR takes seriously a prevailing form of anti-Semitism on campus, anti-Semitism that masks as anti-Zionism. It is not sufficient to protect Jews on the basis of their religious practice. Judaism is an ethno-religion, and Jews are protected by law from discrimination that targets them on the basis of their Jewish peoplehood and the Jews’ shared ancestral ethnic heritage, which is inextricably linked to the land of Israel.”

The Resolution Agreement concludes the federal investigation prompted by a Brandeis Center-filed complaint. President Lewin stated the Brandeis Center will be waiting to see how the changes required by the settlement are implemented and noted that OCR will have to monitor the agreement to ensure the university lives up to its commitment: “This is just the first step, right? The devil is in the details….We’ve yet to see whether the university will do more than just…say the right thing.”

Brandeis Center Urges Education Dept. to Retain Protections for Students’ Civil Liberties

The Brandeis Center submitted a formal regulatory comment in response to ED’s “Request for Information Regarding First Amendment and Free Inquiry Related Grant Conditions.” Specifically, we urged the Department to retain the Free Inquiry Rule and provide additional technical assistance to ensure that it continues to provide effective protections for students’ civil liberties.

The provisions at issue require that public and private institutions of higher education that receive grants from ED uphold free speech principles to the extent that they are bound by either the First Amendment or contractual obligations.

As the Brandeis Center explained: “These provisions are important for protecting students, including Jewish students, who are silenced through intimidation or harassed and punished for their speech. We frequently see how Jewish students who express aspects of their ethnic and shared ancestral identity connected to Israel, are denied their rights to free speech, expression, and association on campus. By simply sharing and celebrating their heritage and affinity for their ancestral homeland, Israel, online or on campus, Jewish students have been ostracized, forced out of student government positions, and coerced into silence. The Free Inquiry Rule has been a useful tool to deter such misconduct, and rescinding it would expose students to further abuse.”

Kenneth L. Marcus Interprets Oral Arguments in SCOTUS Religious Liberty Case

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Groff v. DeJoy, a case that could change how employers must treat employees’ religious observance rights. The Brandeis Center filed a friend of the court brief in the case, which involves a complaint by postal worker Gerald Groff, who was forced to quit his job when a U.S. Postal Service requirement that he work Sundays conflicted with his Sabbath observance. The case has significant ramifications for observant Jews.

Following oral argument, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus interpretedapparent mixed signals from the justices: “On the one hand, it is great to see that there is significant opposition to the awful de minimis rule, under which employers have been able to escape responsibility for protecting their religious employees if reasonable accommodations would cost any amount of money…. On the other hand, it was disappointing to see so little support on the Court for the strong new standard of religious freedom that many of us had hoped for and expected. Some of the conservative justices were more skeptical of Mr. Groff’s position than many would have anticipated and that may not bode well for religious freedom.”

The Court’s decision is expected by the end of its current term in June.

Marcus Commends Florida Governor and Legislators for Signing HB 269 Into Law

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus issued the following statement on the signing of HB 269 into law, a portion of which was included in a story by The Algemeiner.

“We are delighted Florida’s Governor today took strong action to address the alarming spike in anti-Jewish hate crimes by signing Florida’s HB 269. Representatives Caruso and Fine should be congratulated for their leadership and the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County applauded for its work.

“We are now seeing a resurgence of right-wing hate crimes in the streets, just as we are seeing left-wing anti-Semitism growing on the campuses. All forms of anti-Semitism must be fought, through all available legal means, and we are pleased that this legislation will provide us with important additional tools to do so in Florida, as we continue to fight this scourge throughout the country.”

The Brandeis Center provided constitutional and legal analysis to Florida’s Jewish community in support of the bill.

Marcus Criticizes Twitter’s Changes to its Hate Speech Policy

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus spoke to the Daily Caller for its story on the mixed reaction to Twitter’s recent inclusion of anti-Jewish statements in its hate speech policy.

Marcus pointed out that Twitter not only has an anti-Semitism problem – but also a history of suppressing controversial speech, more so when it comes from conservatives. The Jewish News Syndicate saw fit to include a portion of Marcus’s remarks in its own story on the subject.

The policy changes “will give little assurance to those whose speech, while forceful, is legitimate,” Marcus said. “Twitter should be very specific about Jew-hatred, calling out Holocaust denial specifically and using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism to identify hateful speech.”

International Rugby Publication Covers LDB-Led Coalition to Fight Anti-Israel Discrimination

Rugby365, one of the world’s most prominent rugby websites, continued its coverage of the South Africa Rugby Union’s (SARU’s) anti-Israel discrimination – the last-minute exclusion of an Israeli rugby team (and Brandeis Center client), the Tel Aviv Heat.

In its latest story, the news source covered a letter to SARU by Brandeis Center-led coalition that included major Jewish organizations across the spectrum, including AJC, ADL, and ZOA, urging the San Clemente Rhinos (an American team) not to accept the replacement slot in the international competition from which the Tel Aviv Heat was wrongfully excluded.

“There is an unacceptable appearance that the San Clemente Rhinos are benefitting from discrimination against the Heat….It would be a significant mistake for you to participate in a discriminatory competition” maintained the LDB-led coalition letter, in excerpts reprinted by the publication.

Landmark LDB Paper Cited in Opinion Article Addressing Anti-Semitic bias in Mideast Studies Programs

The Washington Examiner syndicated a Daily Signal opinion article calling on ED to address anti-Semitic bias in Middle East Studies Programs.

The authors of the article cite the Brandeis Center’s influential 2014 white paper, “The Morass of Middle East Studies,” which convinced ED to adopt new rules preventing Mideast Studies courses from practicing anti-Semitism.

The article cites an LDB finding of “bias against Israel” in 93% of Israel-related public events at UCLA between 2010-2013. The piece also mentions a letter signed earlier this year by more than a dozen U.S. Senators highlighting concerns about taxpayer-funded anti-Semitism in Mideast Studies programs. The Brandeis Center commended the senators for their letter in a public statement.

Donate to the Brandeis Center

Sign up for our monthly Brandeis Brief and other messages from us

Forward this email to a friend

The Louis D. Brandeis Center
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1025, Washington, DC 20006You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center is a nonprofit organization supported by individuals, groups and foundations that share our concern about Jewish college students. Contributions are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To support our efforts to combat campus anti-Semitism, please contact us at info@brandeiscenter.com

Contact: Nicole Rosen

202-309-5724

Washington, D.C. (April 27, 2023): Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights for two presidents, issued the following statement today on the signing of HB 269 into law:

The Brandeis Center provided constitutional and legal analysis to Florida’s Jewish community in support of the bill.

Jews make up just 2% of the populace, but, according to the latest FBI statistics, Jews have been targeted more than all other religious groups combined.

Anti-Semitic incidents have been rising in Florida for several years, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s 2022 report, “Hate in the Sunshine State.” As reported by JTA’s Andrew Lapin, “antisemitic groups have rallied outside Walt Disney World and a Chabad house in Orlando; displayed messages of Jew-hatred on a Jacksonville stadium during a highly watched college football game; and visited Florida universities trying to provoke students with messaging including “Ye Is Right” (referring to the rapper, formerly known as Kanye West, who went on an antisemitic tirade last fall).”

To view this statement as a PDF, click here.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center is an independent, non-partisan institution for public interest advocacy, research and education. The Center’s mission is to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and to promote justice for all. The Center’s education, research and advocacy focus, among other things, on the resurgent problem of anti-Semitism on college campuses, in the workplace and across the nation. It 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.

Share

Copy short link