The Louis D. Brandeis Center recently signed a statement calling on Twitter to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism to better enable it to identify and remove anti-Semitic content on its platform. Last week, extremist Internet content made it to the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket. The court heard oral arguments in the companion cases Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh. In those cases, the Court will address whether the families of terrorist victims can recover under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for social media companies’ recommendations of ISIS content and allowing their platforms to be used for ISIS recruitment. The outcome could significantly reshape the digital landscape. . Both cases involve victims of ISIS attacks. American student Nohemi Gonzalez was shot and killed by ISIS members while she was eating at a café with her friends during the “Paris Attacks” of 2015. At the time, Gonzalez was participating in a foreign exchange program to learn French. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in a YouTube video. . In the Taamneh case, Nawras Alsaaaf, a Jordanian citizen, was also shot and killed by an ISIS member. In 2017, Alsaaf was vacationing in Istanbul with his wife. He was at the Reina nightclub when ISIS members attacked it. He and 38 other people died in the attack. ISIS claimed responsibility the next day. . Social media companies claim immunity from ATA suit under 47 U.S.C.A. § 230. Section 230 was enacted in 1996 and provides that interactive service providers are generally not liable for what users, referred to as “information content providers,” say on their platforms. However, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), allows for terrorist victims to recover primary and secondary liability against any person who “aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed” an act of international terrorism. . Evidence shows that ISIS has used social media sites, including Twitter and Facebook, to spread extremist propaganda, recruit members, instill fear, and plan attacks. A 2015 study found that ISIS supporters controlled between 46,000 and 70,000 Twitter accounts. Included among the posts were graphic videos of their attacks. . The plaintiffs argue that Google and Twitter have crossed the line from interactive service provider to internet content provider by implementing their advanced algorithms. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ algorithmic recommendations convey a message distinct from the recommended videos or posts they present to users by implying that users will enjoy them. As such, they have created additional content and would not be protected under Section 230. Thus, the plaintiffs contend the defendants should be held liable for aiding and abetting ISIS under the ATA. . The defendants claim that this interpretation of Section 230 is too expansive. The defendants argue that Congress intended the Act to help the internet grow by reducing website operators’ obligation to ensure all posts on their websites are legal. Holding for the plaintiffs, the defendants argue, would defeat this intent. The defendants further argue that even if they are not afforded immunity under Section 230, they did not aid and abet ISIS because their algorithms operate automatically, and therefore they did not aid and abet “knowingly,” which the statute requires. Conversely, the plaintiffs claim that the companies did aid and abet “knowingly” since they knew the recommendations were helping ISIS. . Both cases highlight the difficult balance between the rights of victims of terrorism to recover damages from companies which facilitated the work of the terrorist groups which targeted them, and the need to promote free expression and innovation on the Internet. The Supreme Court will decide the cases later this year.
. It was a great day for the cause of justice when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand an anti-BDS law in Arkansas. The Brandeis Center submitted legal briefs on the side of the state. The Republican National Committee cited our 2021 survey “Anti-Semitism @ College” in its resolution opposing all forms of anti-Semitism, Chairman Marcus was widely quoted in the press, and President Lewin spoke to several groups about anti-Semitism on campus. . U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Arkansas Anti-BDS Law; Brandeis Center Supported Anti-BDS Law.The Supreme Court denied cert. in a case upholding the State of Arkansas’s anti-BDS law. The Brandeis Center submitted amicus briefs on the side of the state in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit..The Brandeis Center released the following public statement. . “Today is a great day for the cause of justice. This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand an important appeals court victory for anti-BDS legislation and civil rights law by denying cert. in the Arkansas anti-BDS case, Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip. In doing so, the Court put to rest the absurd notion that anti-BDS laws are incompatible with robust protections for the freedom of speech. Anti-Israel boycotts will now be seen for what they are: discriminatory conduct rather than political speech. . “Like many other states, Arkansas had commendably decided that its state’s taxpayers should not subsidize anti-Semitic boycotts of Israel through their government contracting process. When states prohibit discrimination against other groups, they must be consistent in preventing bias against the Jewish people. It is notable that, in this case, BDS supporters could not find even one justice — there were no dissenters — to support their discriminatory activities. . “The Louis D. Brandeis Center was pleased to support the State of Arkansas through its amicus work, just as we have fought BDS in higher education, corporate America, and most recently in the Ben & Jerry’s case. We will continue to fight against discriminatory BDS activities from the campus to the ice cream parlor, and from the boardroom to the U.S. Supreme Court.” . Chairman Marcus Remarks on Anti-Semitism in University of California System . In a new Daily Caller article asking: “Is the University of California System Becoming a Safe Space for Antisemitism?” Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus commented on a recent event at UCLA featuring a George Washington University professor under investigation for alleged anti-Semitic comments and behavior. . “The University of California system has had very significant anti-Semitic incidents going back 20 years,” Marcus said. “I’m no fan of cancel culture, but here we have a situation in which UCLA is responding to credible allegations of anti-Semitism by giving a podium to the accused anti-Semite, and they are actually going out of their way to amplify the anti-Semitic speech.” .. RNC Cites Brandeis Center Survey of Jewish College Students in Resolution Condemning Anti-Semitism . The Republican National Committee’s “Resolution to Oppose All Forms of Antisemitism” cited the Brandeis Center’s 2021 survey, “Anti-Semitism @ College” – the first poll to examine rates of anti-Semitism among college students who claim a strong sense of Jewish identity – in speaking out against anti-Semitism: . “WHEREAS, A report from the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law found more than half of Jewish college students say they felt the need to hide their identity on campus…. [T]herefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee shall hereby formally condemn, denounce, censure and oppose all forms of…antisemitism, antisemitic statements, and any antisemitic elements that seek to infiltrate the Republican Party.” . ‘Inside Higher Education’ Cites Federal Investigations Based on Brandeis Center Complaints and Marcus’s Insights on Combating Campus Anti-Semitism . Prominent news site Inside Higher Ed highlighted three federal investigations based on Brandeis Center-filed complaints: the University of Vermont, the University of Southern California, and Brooklyn College – in an article analyzing the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. . Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus emphasized that higher education administrators are now on notice that the Office for Civil Rights remains focused on addressing campus anti-Semitism: “OCR doesn’t always express itself with a level of clarity that we might like, but I think that in recent months, it has taken a number of measures to demonstrate to institutions that campus anti-Semitism remains a significant priority,” Marcus said. . That includes mentioning a “distressing rise in reports of antisemitism on campuses across the country” in a news release and releasing fact sheets on Title VI protections from discrimination, including clarifying how the law protects students who are perceived to be from a particular religious group. . Marcus noted the challenge now is to resolve anti-Semitism cases: “It’s one thing to open the case, and it’s another thing to figure out what they need to do and then do it. That will be the big question. Now that they’re looking at all these cases, are they going to be able to finish them?” . .‘The College Fix’ Interviews Chairman Marcus about Ed. Dept. Anti-Semitism Guidelines Delay . The College Fix interviewed Kenneth L. Marcus about the again-delayed release of anti-Semitism guidelines by the U.S. Education Dept. Office for Civil Rights, which could impact thousands of Jewish students across American college campuses. .Chairman Marcus explained that rather than granting the Education Dept. any new powers or responsibilities, the new guidelines would merely preserve the status quo: “The new regulation would keep all of this in place, despite continuing efforts from many left-wing critics to remove them. Some people misunderstand what is meant by codifying the Trump [Executive] order [which incorporated the IHRA Working Definition of anti-Semitism to determine when anti-Semitism takes place on college campuses].” . “It doesn’t mean that the federal government would investigate any form of conduct that meets the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Rather, it means reinforcing both the Trump rule on anti-Semitism and also the Trump protections for free speech.” . While expressing disappointment that the regulation remains in limbo, Chairman Marcus commended Assistant Secretary Catherine E. Lhamon, for recently reaffirming “OCR’s commitment to complying with” the Trump Executive Order. This “’comes as ‘many university administrators, especially at left-leaning universities, have refused to take the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism seriously, because the Trump administration is over and remains unpopular,’ Marcus said. The Biden administration has ‘been very strong when it comes to rightwing violations. The question is whether they will be equally strong when it comes to hate and bias incidents within their base.’” . .Alyza D. Lewin Interviewed on “Never Again Is Now” Podcast about Global Anti-Semitism . President Alyza D. Lewin was featured on an episode of “Never Again Is Now” – a podcast about global anti-Semitism. . In today’s environment, where the news is filled with headlines on campus anti-Semitism, President Lewin explains what legal actions the Brandeis Center is taking to protect Jewish college students. . .Click the video to watch the President Lewin’s podcast episode. . .Alyza D. Lewin Speaks at Launch of Newest Brandeis Center Law School Chapter . Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin spoke to the Brandeis Center’s latest law school chapter – NYU School of Law’s “Law Students Against Anti-Semitism – NYU Law Chapter of the Brandeis Center.” . ”The climate at NYU Law has been challenging, particularly for Jewish students who have felt marginalized for taking pride in the Jews’ ancestral and ethnic connection to Israel,” notes Lewin. “Jewish students at NYU Law have experienced ‘erasive anti-Semitism,’ a form of anti-Semitism that denies Jews their identity as a people and erases Jewish history. The Brandeis Center’s new chapter at NYU Law is empowering students to educate the school community and combat the anti-Semitism. We are gratified to be able to support the NYU Law students in this way and help ensure that their voices are heard on this important topic.” . Law Students Against Anti-Semitism exists to educate, advocate, and plan events at NYU School of Law on the defense of the Jewish community from anti-Semitism as it exists in its various forms. . .Brandeis Center Engages Every Delegate of ABA’s Governing Body Over Anti-Semitism Resolution . The Brandeis Center wrote individualized, personalized letters to every member of the House of Delegates, the American Bar Association’s policy-making body. . . Our organization commended the body for supporting a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, while expressing regret it did not endorse a version of the resolution including the internationally-recognized IHRA working definition of antisemitism. . In our letter, we corrected misinformation and mischaracterizations of the IHRA Definition, and explained how it is properly used to understand modern manifestations of anti-Semitism without impinging on speech rights. . .Welcome, Spring Law Clerk and Undergraduate Interns . We welcome our new and talented group of law clerks and undergraduate communications interns! . .Returning intern Tzivia Lutch (Touro University, 2024) introduces the full crew in a new Brandeis Center blog post. . Law clerk Jack Burke (Brooklyn Law School, 2024) discusses how, in a pair of cases, the Supreme Court is addressing social media liability for terrorist content. . And new intern Nikki Merrill (Villanova University, 2023) recapped our recent webinar “Holocaust Denial and Erasive anti-Semitism.” . 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 20006 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 .
Washington, D.C. (February 21, 2023): Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, issued the following statement today commending the U.S. Supreme Court’s action, which bolsters state laws that prohibit discriminatory boycotts of Israel: . “Today is a great day for the cause of justice. This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand an important appeals court victory for anti-BDS legislation and civil rights law by denying cert. in the Arkansas anti-BDS case, Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip. In doing so, the Court put to rest the absurd notion that anti-BDS laws are incompatible with robust protections for the freedom of speech. Anti-Israel boycotts will now be seen for what they are: discriminatory conduct rather than political speech. . “Like many other states, Arkansas had commendably decided that its state’s taxpayers should not subsidize anti-Semitic boycotts of Israel through their government contracting process. When states prohibit discrimination against other groups, they must be consistent in preventing bias against the Jewish people. It is notable that, in this case, BDS supporters could not find even one justice — there were no dissenters — to support their discriminatory activities. . “The Louis D. Brandeis Center was pleased to support the State of Arkansas through its amicus work, just as we have fought BDS in higher education, corporate America, and most recently in the Ben & Jerry’s case. We will continue to fight against discriminatory BDS activities from the campus to the ice cream parlor, and from the boardroom to the U.S. Supreme Court.” . The Brandeis Center has been deeply involved in combatting discriminatory and anti-Semitic boycotts of Israel at the state, federal and international level. The organization submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on the Arkansas case, and most recently, as the attorneys representing Avi Zinger, successfully prevented Ben & Jerry’s from boycotting Israel. . Click here to view a PDF on Brandeis Center letterhead of this press release. . 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 especially, but not exclusively, on the problems of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses.
The Brandeis Center is welcoming a new civil rights law clerk and interns for the spring semester. The work of our clerks and interns is vitally important in advancing the efforts of the Brandeis Center. . Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus commented, “We’re delighted to welcome this new crop of students, who have already begun making valuable contributions to our work. They join us at a time when LDB is growing to fight an increase in anti-Semitism on and off college campuses. We are so pleased to have them join us.” . Law clerk Jack Burke is a second-year law student at Brooklyn Law School and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Molloy University. During his time as a law student, Jack interned with Judge Robert McDonald in Nassau County and helped in criminal cases. Before enrolling in law school, Jack was an intern for New York State Senator Todd Kaminsky, where he worked on a legislative initiative to address anti-Semitism on Long Island. . Intern Danielle Sobkin is a junior at The University of California at Berkeley double-majoring in Economics and Data Science. Danielle is a member of the Hillel International Student Cabinet, a Data Scientist at Jewish on Campus (JOC), and the Director of Curriculum at Berkeley Venture Capital (BVC). Before joining the Brandeis Center, Danielle interned at Morrison & Foerster LLP and is looking forward to pursuing a career in law. . Intern Nikki Merrill is a senior at Villanova University in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. She is double majoring in Psychology and Communication and is a member of the Psi Chi International Honor Society in Psychology. Her senior project explores hate speech on college campuses. In addition to interning at the Brandeis Center, she also currently writes weekly blog posts for World Athletics on topics related to gender equity. . Intern Tzivia Lutch is an honors political science student at Touro University and a member of the Tikvah Fund’s Colligate Forum. Before joining the Brandeis Center in the fall, Tzivia interned at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under Judge Mathew H. Solomson, the Coalition for Jewish Values, and the Endowment for Middle East Truth. After she graduates, Tzivia is looking forward to law school and a career in law and public policy. In the meantime, Tzivia is pleased to have joined the wonderful team at the Brandeis Center where she is eager to advance the Center’s important work. . We encourage interested students to apply to our summer internship, clerkship, and fellowship programs here.
The Brandeis Center hosted a webinar last month entitled ‘Holocaust Denial and Erasive anti-Semitism.’ The webinar is part of the Brandeis Center’s support for the Shine a Light campaign and was hosted on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day.. Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and President Alyza D. Lewin served as moderators. Marcus and Lewin were joined by three distinguished panelists, including Yfat Barak-Cheney, Ben Freeman, and Arthur Traldi.. Barak-Cheney, the World Jewish Congress’ Director of International Affairs and Human Rights, began the webinar by defining Holocaust denial and distortion with reference to the IHRA definition. Cheney said, “Holocaust denial refers to discourse or propaganda that deny the historical reality as well as the extent and intentionality of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and accomplices during World War II.” In contrast, “distortion is not denying that the Nazi’s sought to murder the Jews of Europe, but still significantly and purposively misrepresenting the historical record.”. Barak-Cheney leads WJC’s efforts on combating online hate and described how Holocaust denial and distortion are not a new problem – but they are growing in prevalence with the rise of social media. She noted that according to a recent UNESCO report, 16.4% of all Holocaust information across popular platforms is Holocaust denial, and on some platforms, such as Telegram, 50% of Holocaust information is denial and distortion. “With the online world being so welcome to such ideas, we’ll soon just not be able to separate truth from lies,” said Barak-Cheney. “We will not be able to claim established narratives, and we will face the erasure of Holocaust history, and with it, a significant part of our ability to prevent genocide in the future.”. Freeman, the author of Reclaiming Our Story: The Pursuit of Jewish Pride, spoke next and categorized Holocaust denial and distortion as forms of erasive anti-Semitism and erasive Jew hatred, two terms he coined. He defined these terms as taking two forms: the erasure of Jewish identity and experience and the erasure of Jews as victims of prejudice. This erasure serves to rewrite Jewish history, erase the minority status of Jews, and undermine their need for protection and allyship. . Freeman asserts that erasive anti-Semitism is a danger to the Jewish people and a danger to the ability of the wider world to understand the Jewish people. “We cannot allow the Jewish story to be told by others, we cannot allow our story to be rewritten, with specific reference to the Holocaust, because what a horrendous insult to the six million Jewish souls who were stolen from us,” said Freeman. “It is our duty to honor them as best we can by retelling their stories.”. Brandeis Center Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi described ways in which erasure shows up in legal settings. He identified three examples of erasure in federal hate crimes law: two months ago when the FBI dramatically underreported anti-Semitic hate crimes, which the Brandeis Center called on the FBI to correct; last year when the FBI claimed that the Colleyville synagogue hostage taking had “nothing to do with the Jewish community”; and in university’s legally mandated hate crime reporting, where anti-Semitic hate crimes have been underreported. . Traldi also described the ways in which erasive anti-Semitism shows up on university campuses, an area in which the Brandeis Center specializes. “At a time of rising levels of anti-Semitism on campus, Jewish students are told their identities and targeting don’t count or aren’t important enough to be included in what is ironically called inclusion programing.” . Traldi referenced the Brandeis Center’s complaint against Stanford University in 2021, which came in response to the DEI program’s refusal to recognize or address anti-Semitic hostility on campus. The complaint also detailed the program’s decision to exclude anti-Semitism from its DEI curriculum and initiatives and attempts to silence and intimidate Jews who challenged its decisions. . The webinar ended with an opportunity for audience members to ask questions, largely focused on how both Jews and non-Jews can combat erasive anti-Semitism on university campuses and beyond. Panelists and moderators agreed that the best way to combat erasive anti-Semitism is through education. Jews can contribute to this effort by continuing to share their identity and experience and non-Jews can help by listening and creating space for Jewish voices to be heard.
The Brandeis Center had a very active start to 2023, pushing back against anti-Semitism. Chairman Marcus’s op-ed “Will President Biden Follow Through on His Pledge to Combat Anti-Semitism?” ricocheted through Jewish media sources. When the Dept. of Education answered with another delay of anti-Semitism guidelines, causing much confusion, Chairman Marcus identified “the Biden administration’s first public embrace of IHRA within a domestic context.” And our new corporate initiative continued to Shine A Light on anti-Semitism – with two new webinars tackling issues of workplace and erasive anti-Semitism. .Chairman Marcus Asks: ‘Will President Biden Follow Through on His Pledge to Combat Anti-Semitism?’ As Chanukah came and went – without the gift of the Biden administration’s long-delayed federal regulation on combating anti-Semitism, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus publicly asked in Jewish Journal: “Will President Biden Follow Through on His Pledge to Combat Anti-Semitism?” The question reverberated through Jewish news sources, with Marcus’s op-ed syndicated in JNS, the Algemeiner and Combat Antisemitism Movement’s newsletter. Many Jewish American organizations are paying attention, as “The stakes are high. President Biden has correctly identified the seriousness of confronting anti-Semitism.” Now his administration needs to deliver a strong regulation to ensure in his words, that ‘Evil will not win,’ and ‘Hate will not prevail.’” . Marcus Alone Identifies Breakthrough in Otherwise Disappointing Ed. Dept. Remarks One week after Chairman Marcus’s op-ed was published, the current head of the Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced that the Department would again delay the release of crucial anti-Semitism guidelines. Some groups who are critical of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism gloated about the delay and created confusion about the Department’s commitment to confronting anti-Semitism. Marcus alone clarified the issue by identifying “a significant breakthrough…in the Biden administration’s first public embrace of IHRA within a domestic context.” The OCR’s Assistant Secretary Catherine E. Lhamon wrote that the Biden administration “affirms OCR’s commitment to complying with Executive Order 13899 on Combating Antisemitism.” Marcus’s analysis was echoed by the Conference of Presidents and picked up by Politico, Jewish Insider and Jewish Journal, halting misinformation about OCR’s approach to fighting anti-Semitism on campus. .Alyza D. Lewin Discusses Ben & Jerry’s and Campus Anti-Semitism on Zev Brenner Program On his program “Talkline,” Zev Brenner interviewed Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin about the organization’s efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Lewin discussed the December announcement that litigation between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s independent board had been resolved – preserving the Brandeis Center-helmed agreement that prevented an unlawful boycott of Israel. She also discussed how Jewish students on campus are increasingly feeling pressured to hide or shed the Zionist component of their Jewish identity in order to fully participate in campus life – and how the Brandeis Center provides legal guidance to these students empowering them to combat campus anti-Semitism. . . Click the video to watch President Lewin’s interview. .Denise Katz-Prober Discusses Title VI at AEN Faculty Conference At the Academic Engagement Network’s seventh Regional Short Course, Brandeis Center Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober delivered a presentation on the topic of “Jewish Identity and Title VI: Using the Law to Confront Antisemitism on Campus.” Following her remarks, President Alyza D. Lewin joined Katz-Prober for the Q&A discussion. . . Click the video to watch Denise Katz-Prober’s presentation. . Brandeis Center’s #ShineALight Efforts Continue with Two Additional Webinars The Brandeis Center’s December webinars, “Religious Accommodations in the Corporate Workplace” and “Jewish Identity: What Employers Need to Know,” highlighted our commitment to the Shine A Light campaign, encouraging Jews and allies to send a message that anti-Semitism, in all its modern forms, won’t be tolerated in our communities. In January, we hosted two additional webinars as part of our commitment to Shine A Light, as well as our corporate initiative: “Anti-Semitism in the Workplace” featured Holly Huffnagle, Jonathan A. Segal and Craig E. Leen in a discussion about the types of anti-Semitism employees face at work and best practices for companies to combat anti-Semitism, as well as anti-discrimination legal protections for employees and pertinent issues for government contractors. “Holocaust Denial and Erasive Anti-Semitism” featured Yfat Barak-Cheney, Ben M. Freeman and the Brandeis Center’s Arthur R. Traldi for an in-depth conversation about Holocaust denial and distortion, erasive anti-Semitism, and related legal issues. . . Click the video to watch our webinar. . Brandeis Center’s Spotlight on Botched FBI Report Continues In December, the Brandeis Center identified a serious error in the FBI’s reporting methodology for its 2021 hate crimes data, leading to a barrage of mediacoverage. The Washington Free Beacon drew attention to the possibility of Congressional oversight, a point that was then picked up by other media outlets. “It is hard to imagine that a failure of this scope would escape the notice of congressional oversight staff,” declared Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “If DOJ and the FBI do not fix this problem…by providing corrected and complete data to the public, we should not be surprised if Congress should get involved.” . Marcus’s ‘Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones’ Op-Ed Makes Year-End List Credited by the New York Times in December for sparking national attention on the issue of anti-Semitism at Berkeley Law School, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus’s op-ed “Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones” was declared one of “the big debates of 2022” by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “Faculty, politicians and activists weighed in on both sides of what has become a central debate on campuses and beyond: When does anti-Zionism become antisemitism, and how do you balance free speech rights against the claims by some students that their personal safety hangs in the balance?” . Brandeis Center Survey Still Resonates Two Years Later “Anti-Semitism @ College” – the Brandeis Center’s 2021 survey that was the “first poll to survey ‘openly Jewish’ college students – was cited by Colonel Richard Kemp in a new op-ed for the Gatestone Institute, “Jew-Hate at American Universities:” “A 2021 poll from the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law shows college students with a strong sense of Jewish identity and connection to Israel have learnt that to avoid antisemitism they must view their religion as something to hide, not celebrate. According to the Brandeis Center: ‘Nearly 70% of the students surveyed personally experienced or were familiar with an anti-Semitic attack in the previous 120 days. More than 65% of these students have felt unsafe on campus due to physical or verbal attacks, with one in 10 reporting they have feared they themselves would be physically attacked. And roughly 50% of students have felt the need to hide their Jewish identity.’” JewishPress.com syndicated the story. . Marcus Paper Cited by National Jewish Advocacy Center in Newsweek Writing in Newsweek about a federal anti-Semitism complaint filed against George Washington University, the director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center cited an academic paper written by Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus, “Academic Freedom and Political Indoctrination:” “As former Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Kenneth Marcus has explained, there is a difference between a professor sharing his personal opinion versus presenting that opinion as incontrovertible fact.” . Brandeis Center Hires Civil Rights Legal Fellow Deena Margolies The Brandeis Center continued to grow with the announcement of a new Civil Rights Legal Fellow, Deena Margolies. Margolies joins the Brandeis Center’s Legal Initiatives team and will assist with the organization’s legal advocacy efforts to confront anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses. “Even as Brandeis Center staff enlarges our focus into workplaces and corporate policies, the need to root out anti-Semitism from classrooms and campus groups shows no signs of slowing down,” stated Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin. “Deena’s passion for our work, sensitivity to the needs of our clients, and attention to detail, which she brings to her role at the Brandeis Center, will strengthen our already stellar team. Working with Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober, Senior Counsel Arthur R. Traldi, and Staff Attorney Ben Alkon, Deena’s addition expands our capacity and enables the Brandeis Center to better meet the growing demand for our services.” Margolies previously worked for two FCC Commissioners. She is a graduate of Northwestern School of Law, with a Business Association Concentration from the Kellogg School of Management. Margolies also holds an LLM from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in Intellectual Property Law. Her undergraduate degree is from the University of Pennsylvania, where she graduated Summa Cum Laude. . New Blogs from Brandeis Center Fellows and Interns Brandeis Center JIGSAW Fellow Emma Enig reviewed a new Harvard Law essay in her piece “Analysis Summary of Modern Anti-BDS Laws.” Two other JIGSAW Fellows authored timely blogs about highly-anticipated SCOTUS cases. Joel Taubman’s piece, “Supreme Court Takes Case Addressing Protections for Religion at Work,” covers the case Groff v. DeJoy. Brandeis Center Fall 2022 Intern Josh Feinstein’s new blog addresses a related topic, our December webinar, “Religious Accommodations in the Corporate Workplace.” And JIGSAW Fellow Yossi Abadi’s blog, “Supreme Court Grapples with the Anti-Semitic History of College Admissions,” examines the cases SFFA v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina – including the Brandeis Center’s amicus brief filed on behalf of both cases. Spring 2023 intern Danielle Sobkin wrote a synopsis of our January webinar “Anti-Semitism in the Workplace.” 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
The Brandeis Center hosted a webinar earlier this month entitled “Anti-Semitism in the Workplace.” Panelists discussed the effects of anti-Semitism in the corporate world and the role it plays in current trends and perceptions, specifically within Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) training and accommodations. . Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus served as moderator. The panelists included: Holly Huffnagle, American Jewish Committee U.S. Director for Combating Antisemitism Jonathan A. Segal, Partner at Duane Morris LLP and Managing Principal at the Duane Morris Institute Craig E. Leen, Partner at K&L Gates LLP and former director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin also participated in the Q&A section. . After a brief introduction, Huffnagle provided background on the behavioral changes recorded in American Jews in the workplace: four in ten Jewish adults have changed their behavior at least once due to fear, 40% of US adults have reported seeing anti-Semitism, and 30% have reported seeing it more than once. There is an unfortunate disconnect in the workplace, which begins with a deep-rooted misunderstanding in who Jews are. Huffnagle urged for anti-Semitism to be discussed within DEI spaces and training. The flawed presumption that Jews are “white and privileged” has resulted in anti-Semitism to be extremely overlooked as Jews are perceived to be superior and having too much power. Anti-Semitism oversight is society’s blind spot that propels toxic and biased company culture. . Segal spoke about conscious anti-Semitism and how it impacts workplace stereotyping and organizational dismissiveness. Workplace accommodations tend to be treated differently for Jewish individuals – who must explain and reexplain their need for holiday or Sabbath observance. Jewish employees can be harassed via jokes or comments pertaining to wealth, power, Holocaust denial, the Middle East, and many other detrimental stereotypes. As these factors compound, there is an evident need for implementing anti-Jewish bias training in the workplace. . Leen highlighted the problems caused by the normalization of anti-Semitism in the workplace. He reiterated that religious accommodations must be taken just as seriously and with the same gravity as disability accommodations. Anti-Semitism in the workplace is a significant problem and proactive measures must be in place to protect Jewish professionals. These standards must be upheld in the highest regard and granted equally across the board. . In the webinar’s final Q&A section, Kenneth L. Marcus asked the group why some corporations have done the right thing while others have not. Huffnagle suggested it depends on a company’s leadership –being willing to ask hard questions and strive for more equitable outcomes. By seeking input from Jewish employees when creating new policies or restructuring current ones, leadership can leverage their unique perspective to propel improvement. Segal added that employees must listen rather than be defensive, be willing to integrate new training, and strive to do the trivial things that will ultimately go a long way in forging bridges. Sometimes when anti-Semitic incidents occur, discussion during their aftermath leads to improvements. Leen emphasized the need for DEI programs to include religion – with the understanding the Jews are both a people and a religion – an “ethno-religion.” He lamented the fact that, compared to other groups, Jews are often over-generalized as a falsely monolithic group to fit arbitrary stereotypes. . This webinar is part of the Brandeis Center’s corporate initiative and part of our support for the Shine A Light campaign.
Last fall, LDB put anti-Semitism on the Supreme Court’s docket in the cases of SFFA v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. The plaintiffs in these cases alleged that affirmative action programs operated by Harvard and by UNC had the effect of discriminating against Asian-American applicants on the basis of race. The Brandeis Center, together with the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, filed an amicus brief authored by Jonathan Vogel of the Vogel Law Firm. LDB’s brief significantly informed the Court’s and the litigants’ understanding of the historical background of discrimination and quotas in American university admissions, and particularly how they had previously been used to exclude Jewish applicants. We filed a similar amicus brief in Fisher v. University of Texas in 2012. . The Brandeis Center’s brief describes how Harvard systematically discriminated against Jewish applicants in the 1920s. President Lowell of Harvard changed the admissions process in 1920 to lower the number of Jewish students. To disguise this intention, Harvard limited total enrollment and began to admit only students of suitable “character and fitness.” This equipped Harvard with a subjective measure to use to eliminate otherwise-qualified applicants. Knowing that Lowell thought Jews lacked character, the admissions office subsequently lowered the percentage of Jewish students to 15 percent from its peak of 28 percent. . Today, Harvard uses a similar subjective metric—a “personal rating.” The Brandeis Center’s brief noted evidence that this unfairly impacts Asian-American applicants because they receive lower personal rating scores, on average, than applicants of other races. The lawsuit alleges that Harvard systematically gives Asian-Americans lower scores to ensure fewer Asian-American students are admitted. If true, this mimics the anti-Semitic discrimination of the 1920s – using a subjective factor to discriminate against a particular group of applicants. . The parties to the Harvard case referred to the Brandeis Center’s brief, and the history of anti-Semitic discrimination the brief addressed, throughout oral argument. In SFFA’s opening statement, they compared the alleged discrimination in the case to the discrimination against Jewish students in the 1920s. Justice Gorsuch highlighted Harvard’s dark history later in the case when questioning Harvard’s attorney about their current practices, asking what to do with the fact that history shows that Harvard’s original move to a holistic application process was motivated by the desire to impose a quota on Jewish applicants. In response, Harvard acknowledged its past anti-Semitic discrimination and said it was ashamed of that history. SFFA referred to this statement again in rebuttal, saying “Harvard thankfully does say it is ashamed of its history of Jewish discrimination. I hope someday it says the same about how it’s treating Asians.” . Justice Neil Gorsuch also brought up the history of anti-Semitic discrimination in Harvard’s admissions which was identified in the Brandeis Center’s brief in the UNC case, noting evidence from “some of the amici” that Harvard’s holistic admissions policy was used to discriminate against Jewish applicants. . Justice Samuel Alito also criticized Harvard for its history of anti-Semitic discrimination. In Bakke v. University of California, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., had held up Harvard’s admission program as an exemplar for the country. Harvard’s brief in that case talked about the prior thirty years of Harvard’s admissions program. Based on that history, Justice Alito asked Harvard if their omission of their history of anti-Semitic discrimination was selling “Justice Powell a bill of goods” and whether knowing the origins of the Harvard program would have impacted Justice Powell’s decision. Harvard responded that Justice Powell took Harvard’s brief as an accurate description of how its admissions process worked then, but did not take the “terrible stain on its history” of its past anti-Semitic discrimination into consideration. . National media covered our brief when it was filed and quoted LDB Chairman Kenneth Marcus. After the argument, local media in North Carolina again amplified our brief in its coverage of the litigation. . In these cases, the Court must determine if colleges are illegally imposing preferences and limitations on racial and ethnic groups. This decision will have major ramifications on the future of higher education. The Brandeis Center’s brief has ensured that Harvard’s history of discrimination against Jewish students is an important part of the Court’s deliberations.
Washington, D.C. (January 25, 2023) – The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is pleased to announce the appointment of Deena Margolies as the organization’s newest Civil Rights Legal Fellow. . Ms. Margolies, a graduate of Northwestern School of Law, is part of the Brandeis Center’s Legal Initiatives Group. During her six-month term, Ms. Margolies will assist with an array of legal duties and policy matters. . “As the Brandeis Center’s work preventing anti-Semitic discrimination on college campuses expands beyond a number of open U.S. governmental investigations – from the University of Illinois and Brooklyn College to USC, Stanford, and the University of Vermont – we are pleased to welcome Deena to our civil rights team,” said Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “As an organization, we are now larger and stronger than ever before, with more lawyers pursuing cases against a greater number of institutions. While we are fighting anti-Semitism at more colleges, we are also fielding calls from parents of public school children and also addressing corporate anti-Semitism. Sadly, this growth has been necessary to combat the increasingly virulent anti-Semitism that we are seeing across the country.” . “Even as Brandeis Center staff enlarges our focus into workplaces and corporate policies, the need to root out anti-Semitism from classrooms and campus groups shows no signs of slowing down,” stated Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin. “Deena’s passion for our work, sensitivity to the needs of our clients, and attention to detail, which she brings to her role at the Brandeis Center, will strengthen our already stellar team. Working with Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober, Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi, and Staff Attorney Ben Alkon, Deena’s addition expands our capacity and enables the Brandeis Center to better meet the growing demand for our services.” . “Recognizing that the Brandeis Center’s work exposing, explaining and undoing anti-Semitism in American higher education is unmatched, I’m humbled to assist and learn from such esteemed colleagues,” Ms. Margolies shared. “I am committed to upholding Jewish civil and human rights across the country – so that all groups maintain an even playing field and no one’s educational opportunities are curtailed by intimidation, shunning or hateful rhetoric.” . Ms. Margolies previously worked for the offices of two FCC Commissioners – Kevin Martin and Harold Furchtgott-Roth. Her Juris Doctor from Northwestern includes a Business Association Concentration from the Kellogg School of Management. Margolies also holds an LLM from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in Intellectual Property Law. Her undergraduate degree is from the University of Pennsylvania, where she graduated Summa Cum Laude. . The Brandeis Center continues to accept applications for summer law student clerkships, civil rights fellowships and undergraduate communications and development internships.
Registration is open for our webinar Thursday, January 26, at noon ET: “Holocaust Denial and Erasive anti-Semitism”: bit.ly/brandeis-webinar. For Holocaust Remembrance Day, we’ll explore Holocaust denial and distortion, other forms of erasive anti-Semitism, and related legal issues.