On June 21, 2022, Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus presented at the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Commission to Combat anti-Semitism. He was the only person outside of the commission who presented in this meeting. . Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin formed this commission under Executive Order 8 in January 2022 to “study antisemitism in the Commonwealth, propose actions to combat antisemitism and reduce the number of antisemitic incidents, as well as compile materials and provide assistance to Virginia’s public school system and state institutions of higher education in relation to antisemitism and its connection to the Holocaust.” . The commission board is made up of the Chief Diversity, Opportunity, and Inclusion Officer, the Secretary of Public Safety, the Secretary of Education, and the Attorney General. Other appointed members include representatives from the Jewish community, other religious communities, experts in “antisemitism, deradicalization, or domestic terrorism,” a representative from the Virginia Holocaust Museum, an attorney from Virginia, and a local Chief Law Enforcement Officer. . Marcus noted in the beginning of his presentation that trends in anti-Semitism globally are going in the wrong direction and that we are no longer making progress towards eradicating it. Based on his observations and experience as well as data from various organizations, the last two decades have seen increased anti-Semitism. Last year’s ADL Audit of Antisemitic Incidents showed that 2021 was the worst year on record of anti-Semitism, with 2,717 incidents reported in the United States. . He also discussed the importance of recognizing anti-Semitism throughout the political spectrum and “where we least expect it.” Anti-Semitism can be seen on the extremes of both the right and the left ends of the political spectrum in many institutions, and it is becoming more apparent on college campuses overall. A 2021 Brandeis Center survey found that members of two predominately Jewish fraternal and sororal groups felt unsafe on campus and that they needed to hide their Jewish identity. . Anti-Semitism is even increasingly found in the places one would least expect it, such as in Human Resources and in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts. These groups intend to address hate and bias but can end up spreading anti-Semitism. Marcus emphasized the need for further training in these areas to address the issue. . In his testimony, Marcus encouraged the commission to start their work by determining how to recognize and identify anti-Semitism. Neo-Nazi manifestations are easier to identify than when anti-Semitism “operates under other guises,” such as anti-Zionism. One helpful tool to understand different forms of anti-Semitism is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism (‘IHRA Definition’). This definition includes guiding examples relating specifically to Israel on what is and is not anti-Semitism. It highlights that not all speech and criticism relating to Israel is anti-Semitic because the context of the situation matters. The Brandeis Center’s fact sheet ‘FAQs About Defining Anti-Semitism’, explains the IHRA Definition in the context of U.S. law. . While many states have adopted the IHRA Definition in some form, Marcus stated that not all governors or legislatures that adopted it made the definition legally binding, limiting its operational and daily use. He urged the commission to consider the prospect of expanding on Executive Order 8 and its embrace of the IHRA Definition to consider how the state of Virginia can systematically consider how the definition should be used. . Many commission members agreed with this statement and agreed to work to make it operational in a variety of contexts, including education, law enforcement, and institutions, such as museums. For example, B’nai B’rith Director of Legislative Affairs Eric Fusfield, discussed the operationalization of the IHRA Definition specifically in the data collection of hate crimes. . Susan Fierro, an attorney serving on the Virginia Commission’s law enforcement subcommittee, discussed focusing efforts on assessing criminal laws, training for law enforcement and prosecutors, rehabilitation and reeducation of offenders, and the security response to anti-Semitic incidents. A commission like this one, Marcus stressed, gives the state of Virginia the opportunity to provide more than a symbolic effort. Instead, the state can create policy that can be operationalized effectively, giving an example to other states of how the IHRA Definition can have a broader impact on defining and preventing anti-Semitism.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, presented a report to the United Nations General Assembly in 2019 on increased anti-Semitism around the world. It took more than two years for a recommended action plan to follow. This document was released in May 2022 for governments and other entities to combat anti-Semitism at all levels, including in the government, in education, and online. The action plan comes after an overall increase in anti-Semitic incidents around the world in 2021 and notes that while many officials have spoken out against anti-Semitism, others themselves have encouraged these ideas or displayed their own anti-Semitic views. . Many major Jewish organizations, such as the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee, have lauded this action plan and urge entities such as governments and non-governmental organizations to follow it to combat anti-Semitism. . The eight-point plan includes recommendations for governments to adopt their own strategies for fighting anti-Semitism, educating the general population, training educators on anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, implementing safety measures for the Jewish community, and countering further anti-Semitism on social media and other websites online. Significantly, it recommends that governments adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism (‘IHRA Definition’). This definition includes examples that demonstrate how certain conduct can be anti-Semitic if, among other things, it delegitimizes, demonizes, or places double standards on Israel. The Brandeis Center’s fact sheet ‘FAQs About Defining Anti-Semitism’, explains the IHRA Definition in the context of U.S. law. . Besides recommending action items for individual governments, the plan also recommends that States create or strengthen the connections between the Jewish community and other cultural or religious communities. It notes that international organizations should also condemn and combat anti-Semitism, as it does not only concern the Jewish people but is a broader human rights issue. The implementation of these suggestions will help to prevent further anti-Semitism through education on this issue and through the increased monitoring of incidents online and in other settings. . Implementing the UN Special Rapporteur’s ideas for combating anti-Semitism could help improve campus life for Jewish students. Educating university administrators, professors and student peers on anti-Semitism and the Holocaust could result in policy changes that better protect Jews on campus. . The adoption of the IHRA Definition by universities would also help students because those examples of anti-Semitism outlined by the definition will formally be considered anti-Semitic. For example, administrators often misunderstand many forms of anti-Semitism that Jewish college students face today as “anti-Israel” or “anti-Zionist” when they are anti-Semitic as well. Moreover, the IHRA Definition will help universities meet their legal obligations because – as our factsheet notes – federal agencies consider the IHRA Definition in determining whether universities are complying with federal antidiscrimination law. . The plan also discusses the anti-Semitism found across different social media platforms. A 2021 study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate noted that of the 714 posts they found that violated “platform standards on anti-Jewish hate”, 84% of these posts were not acted on – the post or account was not removed from the site, or the post was not flagged. These posts were seen by a wide audience and viewed up to 7.3 million times overall, further spreading hateful ideas about Jews. . At a broader level, the plan also encourages governments to monitor and record more data on anti-Semitism, and to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on anti-Semitism. In the United States specifically, data from both the FBI and the ADL show that even though hate crimes tend to be underreported, there have been a high number of anti-Semitic hate crimes recently. The 2020 FBI Hate Crime Statistics note that of 8,263 reported incidents, 683 incidents were anti-Jewish – the 3rd highest total for any group, even though Jews make up only about 2% of the U.S. population. The ADL’s 2021 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents shows that 2,717 antisemitic incidents were reported this year – the worst year on record and more than a 30% increase from the 2,026 reported in 2020. Responding to this increase in hate crimes – and reflecting the action plan’s call for better data on anti-Semitism – the state of Arizona recently adopted the IHRA Definition to guide its reporting of anti-Semitic hate crimes. Universities in the United States are also required to publicly report hate crimes under the Clery Act to help improve campus safety and to prevent further criminal offenses from occurring. Unfortunately, many anti-Semitic incidents are not reported by universities as hate crimes. Utilizing IHRA can improve the accuracy of their reporting, consistent with the action plan. . The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has advocated for increased education on anti-Semitism not only in higher education but in elementary and secondary education as well. If the United States follows the recommended steps, the Brandeis Center’s Best Practices Guide for Combating Campus Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism will be especially helpful for universities hoping to have a detailed guide on how to best fight anti-Semitism and protect their Jewish students. An updated version of this Best Practices Guide will be available on the Brandeis Center’s website later this year.
Op-ed by Brandeis Center Vice Chair L. Rachel Lerman published in Jewish Journal on June 21, 2022. . Los Angeles parents and teachers recently announced they are suing the Los Angeles Unified School District teachers’ union to keep antisemitism out of California high schools. How and why would antisemitism ever be taught and promoted in our state’s high schools, you might ask? Despite being outlawed by the California Legislature and Governor Newsom, a group favoring what it calls Liberated Ethnic Studies is trying to re-introduce antisemitic and other controversial content by selling an ethnic studies curriculum “under the radar,” as they themselves put it. Allow me to rewind. . In 2016, the California Legislature asked the State Board of Education to design a model ethnic studies course for use in public schools, with the aim of teaching students about and celebrating the contributions of California’s many ethnicities. But the job of drafting was undertaken by a group promoting a narrow and extreme form of ethnic studies, Liberated Ethnic Studies. Liberated seeks to castigate “privileged” white and minority students and set them at odds with other minority students. It became clear early on that is not what the Legislature envisioned. But Liberated remains determined to promote its agenda, even if it must now do so “under the radar.” . Public reaction to Liberated’s first draft, published in 2019, was overwhelmingly critical, in part because of its flagrantly biased and antisemitic content. California’s Board of Education agreed with the critics, stating that any “model curriculum should be accurate, free of bias, appropriate for all learners in our diverse state … The current draft model curriculum falls short and needs to be substantially redesigned.” Governor Newsom concurred. He rejected the second draft a year later for the same reasons. . The third draft, scrubbed of its most objectionable content, was accepted by the Governor, who signed AB 101 in October 2021. AB 101 requires public high schools in California to include ethnic studies as a graduation requirement. It provides school districts leeway to create their own curricula, but it prohibits use of the extreme discriminatory content excised from the first two drafts. . Unfortunately, Liberated has now packaged and is surreptitiously selling a “new” version of its curriculum to California school districts. In fact, Liberated has gone to great lengths to keep its curriculum secret from the public, although California law requires, at a minimum, that any proposal be publicly disseminated, with an opportunity for the public to respond before it is used by schools. So far, however, Liberated training events are by invitation only, and not open to the general public. . And here’s how we get to the lawsuit, filed by The Deborah Project, which reveals that Liberated is secretly working to restore the discriminatory content rejected by the California legislature and Governor Newsom, in a patent end run around AB 101. . The clandestine new curriculum generally denounces capitalism and the traditional family, but its particular obsession is with the State of Israel, not the State of California. Liberated promotes anti-Israel propaganda on the ground that California is home to Arab Americans, whom they classify among “Asian and Pacific Islanders.” If the Middle East is considered part of Asia, one would expect Jews from the Middle East to fall in this category too, but they do not, even if they have the same color skin as their Arab counterparts. . According to a teaching guide taken from the Liberated website (and since removed), Liberated urges ethnic studies teachers to “fly under the radar” if that is what it takes to expose elementary and high school students to its virulent political agenda. “Teaching the truth about Palestine is a liberatory act, for teachers and for students. It’s a political decision. But … you want to be strategic. The goal is for your anti-racist teaching to be sustainable, and to be part of a larger movement.” . The Liberated teaching guide also counsels teachers to resist opposition from mainstream American Jewish groups like the ADL and the Jewish Community Relations Counsel, which it labels part of a “Zionist” conspiracy, although it denies that its anti-Israel venom is antisemitic. . The Liberated curriculum, if adopted, would flout not only AB 101 but a legion of state and federal laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits institutions that receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. According to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), “national origin” discrimination includes discrimination against Jews, who are not only members of a religious group, but also have a shared ancestry or ethnicity. . It follows, as OCR guidance makes clear, that Jewish students may not be discriminated against on the basis of their actual or perceived identification with the State of Israel. School districts engaging with Liberated and considering adoption of its furtive curriculum, in California and elsewhere, should be aware that once it comes to light—as it must—they will face suits on many grounds, in state and federal courts, and under Title VI, which permits victims of bias to file suit with the Department of Education. . The Deborah Project lawsuit brings to light Liberated’s shady attempts to reimpose its politically motivated curriculum. Sunlight may prove the best disinfectant after all, as Justice Brandeis once said.
Opinion article by Kenneth L. Marcus published June 20, 2022 in the Washington Times. . Last week, the Biden administration announced the creation of a new National Parents and Families Engagement Council. The press release trumpets that the council’s purpose is to strengthen relations between parents and schools. No sophisticated observer believes that this is true. . The subtext is clear: Facilitating parental engagement is a worthy goal, but it is not the administration’s real goal. One need not be a Beltway cynic to grasp that the council’s real purpose is to protect Democratic office-holders from the fate suffered by Terry McAuliffe after saying, during last year’s Virginia gubernatorial election, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” Now, after a year of raucous parental demonstrations at school board meetings, the Biden administration needs to co-opt the powerful parents’ reform effort and protect congressional Democrats from midterm electoral disaster. . Facilitating genuine parental engagement, in a way that’s meaningful in the current political climate, would be excruciatingly difficult for this administration. To see how things can go wrong, recall the administration’s prior response to parental engagement. Last October, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum directing federal prosecutors to protect school boards from harassment and threats of violence. The memorandum responded to a National School Boards Association letter insisting that parental “threats and acts of violence” at school board meetings might be “domestic terrorism.” In response to the ensuing uproar, the School Board Association apologized for the letter, but Mr. Garland has not rescinded his memorandum, despite congressional requests that he do so. . If Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who allegedly solicited the ill-fated School Boards letter, is serious about engaging with parents, he must respect the very parents whom his administration has viewed as terrorists. He cannot collaborate only with those parents whom he already counts as friends. To be taken seriously, the Education Department must engage with parents who are front-and-center in the parental rights movement. . While it is understandable for an administration to appoint people who share their perspectives, the council will fail if it does not listen to the voices of reform. The inclusion of the National Parents Union is a good step, but the council must listen to groups like Parents Defending Education, Moms for Liberty and Fight for Schools. They must engage with those who brought school reform onto the national agenda, not just those who uphold the national establishment and the status quo. . Harder still, Mr. Cardona must engage with reform-minded parents on their own ground, rather than on issues with which his team is comfortable. The parental rights movement was ignited by school closures and mask mandates. It has expanded to include a push for school transparency, parental choice, and equal rights. . The question is whether the Biden administration is prepared to engage on the hard issues. . Is Mr. Cardona ready to engage, in a serious way, with parents who are outraged by critical race theory in their children’s classroom? . Is he willing to talk to parents of female athletes who are unable to overcome the physical advantages of transgender competitors? . Is he willing to discuss parental concerns about the age-appropriateness of sex education, including teaching about gender identity to the youngest children in public elementary schools? . Is he ready to talk about anti-Asian discrimination in new magnet school student assignment policies, similar to the one a federal court recently struck down at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology? . Is he ready to engage, in a serious way, with parents who are incensed by the antisemitism and racism, as well as the erasure of Jewish identity, in Liberated Ethnic Studies curricula? . Will he speak to parents who are incensed by anti-Israel indoctrination in social studies classes? . And what of parents who insist that they should have a say in what their children are taught? . Or who simply want to receive honest and complete explanations about what their children are being taught? . If Mr. Cardona is willing to engage, in a serious way, with concerned parents, he may just have a chance of succeeding with his lofty goals. That is the opposite of what his political advisers will advise. But it is the only way forward. . Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and author of “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.” He served as the 11th assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights.
Opinion by Kenneth L. Marcus published on FoxNews.com, June 20, 2022. . A father has sued his daughter’s posh L.A. Brentwood School, alleging “bait and switch” and civil rights violations. The school had responded to George Floyd’s murder by ditching its values – its traditional curriculum – in favor of an anti-racist perspective. Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird was out. Ibram X. Kendi’s Stamped was in. Brentwood responded to Jerome Eisenberg’s concerns by throwing his daughter out of the school, presumably to advance the school’s goal of being “more inclusive.” . At first blush, this case appears to challenge well-intended if heavy-handed educational practices at an enlightened, progressive institution. In fact, it is not what it seems. Not because the administration denies the claims, as one would expect, but because the reforms are not as they seem. . It hardly need be said that Brentwood, like its peers, is all about exclusivity, not inclusivity. The irony, in the current climate, is that such institutions preserve the former by preaching the latter. That is to say, they protect their place in the cultural elite by maintaining appearances. The school’s curricular overhaul communicates the school’s faddish resolve to stay current with fashionable progressive orthodoxies. . Brentwood’s new curriculum was birthed out of shame, not hope. Last June, eight days after George Floyd’s killing, the school posted a black square on Instagram. This was part of the #BlackoutTuesday social media campaign. Many institutions were engaging in anodyne virtue-signaling. Brentwood’s posting, however, provoked a different response than most. . “Brentwood is a toxic racist cesspool for students of color, but an ivory tower for the wealthy, white elite,” read one comment, reflecting the widespread denigration Brentwood received for a history of behavior that many considered racist. . The black square highlighted racial tensions at Brentwood. Former baseball slugger Barry Bonds had responded angrily to a 2016 video of several white Brentwood students using a racial slur while rapping to a popular song. “I am sad that i had to see this at my daughters school…,” he tweeted. His ex-wife asked, “Is this what $40k worth of private education gets you?” . On Juneteenth 2020, Brentwood’s Black Family Association wrote to the school’s administration and trustees, saying that “Juneteenth, 2020 should commemorate the date that Brentwood School committed to leading, instead of catching up.” Brentwood’s Black Family Association demanded that the school educate their children in “an environment that honors their full humanity.” Instead, the school did the opposite. . Beyond racially segregating its students, Brentwood indoctrinated its students on “becoming anti-racist.” This is very different than urging them to become “not racist.” As Kendi teaches, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” In teaching anti-racism, Brentwood traded its previous, unfashionable racism for a more socially acceptable version. . Brentwood could hardly have more to dishonor the “full humanity” of its students than to reduce them, in the fashion of anti-racism, to mere representatives of their race. In fairness, other tony private schools have done similar. As a lawsuit filed last month against the Los Angeles School District’s Liberated Ethnic Studies curriculum underscores, some public school districts are just as bad. . In this coal mine, the role of canary is played, as is often the case, by the Jew. Sickness within the culture of a school, as in that of a society, can be seen in the spread of anti-Semitism. Eisenberg alleges that Brentwood held racially segregated meetings and encouraged students to treat Jewish people as “oppressors” and barred Jewish parents from participating in policy-making decisions. The complaint against Los Angeles’s public schools similarly alleged that system’s progressive efforts to address ethnic conflict had also degenerated into anti-Semitism. . Elsewhere, anti-racist educators have whitewashed Jewish identity, ignoring anti-Semitism and treating Jews as powerful, conspiratorial supporters of white supremacy. This is why the Jewish community fought so hard against California’s earliest ethnic studies proposals. While the finalized California ethnic studies statute resolved numerous problems, Liberated Ethnic Studies continues to contain many of them. . . The answer is not to stop talking. Parents like Jerome Eisenberg should not be muzzled even when they raise discomforting concerns. But the answer is not to ignore an institution’s own history of bias either. One can speak frankly about race without resorting to the fashionable nonsense of contemporary anti-racism. . . Now Juneteenth is here again. And again educators have a choice. If their goal is “leading, instead of catching up,” they can best honor their students’ humanity by returning to their own values, recommitting to traditional education and Western Civilization. This need not mean ignoring their own biases. It means correcting them – as they would know if they hadn’t stopped reading Harper Lee.
Today, June 21, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. EDT, Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus will present at the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Commission to Combat anti-Semitism virtual meeting. Marcus is the only member outside of the commission to be presenting. . The Zoom link can be found here. The event page on the Virginia Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security mistakenly says that the event was on Friday June 17, 2022.
The Brandeis Center is pleased to welcome a host of law clerks and interns for this summer. Our summer Civil Rights Law Clerks are Halsey Diakow and Joel Sontag. The new Communications and Development Interns are Sarah Bernstein, Nicole Rosenzweig, Danya Belkin, Rose Goldstein, Josh Feinstein, and Davis Allen. . Halsey Diakow is a rising second year JD student at American University Washington College of Law and a Masters candidate at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Diakow has competed internationally on the Israel Women’s National Lacrosse team, as an athlete in the 2015 European Championships, and as a coach in the 2017 Women’s World Cup. She will be working on-site at the Brandeis Center’s office intermittently this summer. Joel Sontag is a rising second year at Columbia Law School. He is an amateur triathlete and has participated in several races. . Sarah Bernstein is a rising senior at the University of Pennsylvania. Bernstein studies Health and Societies with a minor in Bioethics. She has been active in the Jewish community as a Jewish Learning Fellow with Penn Hillel and a Jewish Heritage Program Fellow with the Lubavitch Chabad House. . Danya Belkin is a rising sophomore at Duke University planning to major in Political Science with a certificate in Innovation and Entrepreneurship and a minor in Spanish. She has a long list of publications, including research articles and a children’s book which has been published in English and Spanish. Belkin will be working on-site at the Brandeis Center’s office several days a week this summer. . Josh Feinstein is a rising senior at the University of Maryland. He is a double major in International Business and Government and Politics. Feinstein was president of the UMD chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity. . Rose Goldstein is a rising sophomore at Wellesley College studying History. She has been an Ambassador Team Associate for Jewish on Campus and the secretary for Wellesley College Hillel. . Nicole Rosenzweig is a rising junior at Duke University where she is studying Public Policy and Political Science on a pre-law track. She is a Duke Student Government senator and was involved with the Brandeis Center’s efforts to overturn DSG’s veto to recognize the Duke chapter of Students Supporting Israel. Rosenzweig will be working on-site at the Brandeis Center’s office several days a week this summer. . Davis Allen graduated from Keene State College in the spring with a dual major in Holocaust and Genocide Studies and History and a minor in German Studies. He is a returning intern who started in the spring. . The work our interns, clerks and fellows do is vital to helping the Brandeis Center to pursue its work. We invite students to apply for 2022-23 academic year positions.
Authored by LDB Vice Chair L. Rachel Lerman and published in Jerusalem Post on June 14, 2022. . Multi-billion-dollar investment firm Morningstar announced it will discontinue using a product employed by its subsidiary, Sustainalytics, to rate a company’s commitment to corporate responsibility. The decision comes after an independent investigation deemed the product biased against Israel. . The product in question is Sustainalytics’ Human Rights Radar (HRR), one of the “environmental, social and governance” (ESG) rating systems marketed for investors who want to understand a company’s approach to a host of social issues, including sustainability, climate change, treatment of employees and impact on neighboring communities. . While Morningstar is to be commended for halting its use of HRR, the investigators’ findings raise bright red flags, not only about HRR but about other Sustainalytics products, and ESG in general. . The investigation undertaken by the law firm of White & Case concludes that HRR has a disproportionate focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that resulted in “biased outcomes disfavoring companies doing business in Israel.” This comes as no surprise now that it is known that Sustainalytics developed the product in collaboration with an unidentified client having a particular interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The report also exposes the HRR team’s repeated use of inflammatory language to describe Israeli companies and its failure to attribute its findings to any source, as well as the fact that the team received zero oversight from Sustainalytics. . HRR is not the only problem, though. Take, for example, Sustainalytics’ ESG Risk Rating, described in the report as the company’s flagship product. The ESG Risk Rating, the report explains, “is designed to help investors identify and understand financially material ESG-related risks within their investment portfolios and how those risks may affect issuer performance.” . How does Sustainalytics evaluate risk? According to the White & Case report, Sustainalytics researchers start by flagging controversial events reported in the media by NGOs, the UN and even by advocacy campaigns, like those driven by anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) groups, whose aim, according to one of the movement’s founders, is the elimination of Israel. “With respect to reputational risk,” the report tells us, “the assessment narrative that accompanies a controversy rating will make note of advocacy campaigns that have targeted a company in connection with a particular incident, or decisions by third parties to divest from the company in relation to that incident.” . “Media noise” and its effectiveness . IN OTHER words, Sustainalytics looks at media noise, reliable or not, in evaluating and rating companies. Given the volume of BDS campaigns and BDS-related material appearing in the media, Sustainalytics’ approach could easily result in ESG ratings influenced by parties with an anti-Israel agenda. . Sustainalytics has already eliminated a few obviously biased sources, such as the Iran Daily and Electronic Intifada, a notoriously anti-Semitic online platform that actively campaigns against Israel. But the company continues to maintain a particularly close relationship with WhoProfits, an NGO that leads a host of BDS efforts against Israeli companies. Several Sustainalytics platforms – not just HRR – rely on WhoProfits as a source in the context of research involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict areas. . Israeli companies may also find themselves on Sustainalytics’ watch list if they are linked to alleged violations of human rights by groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, both of which have published much-criticized and roundly debunked reports accusing Israel of apartheid, twisting out of recognition the accepted international definition of that word. . Sustainalytics’ employees told White & Case investigators that the company’s ESG ratings are not meant to serve as a blacklist of companies clients must avoid investing in or must divest from. At the same time, employees acknowledged that some clients might use their ESG products in this manner – after all, that is the reason most investors use ESG ratings in the first place. . The report concludes with 43 recommendations and advises the company to reconsider its practice of pressuring Israeli companies in letters, co-signed by investors, advising them of the importance of cooperating with Sustainalytics. “The practice of drafting such statements on behalf of investors and sending to companies on investor letterhead” exceeds the bounds of objective analysis. It may also, as White & Case observes, “run afoul of the intent of certain anti-BDS legislation in the United States.” . It may be reasonable to let investors know that a company is being targeted by activist groups like BDS, but using the opinions of such groups to assess a company’s performance, legal status, or behavior raises series concerns about objectivity. ESG research companies should base risk assessments on verifiable facts and legal expertise, not biased reporting. Hopefully, regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), reportedly in the works, will help ensure that ESG ratings are objective, transparent and less likely to reflect the political agenda of groups like BDS.
Published in Jewish Journal on June 9, 2022. . The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law called on the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to extend their supervision of New York University (NYU) in light of recent antisemitic incidents that have occurred on campus. . In September 2020, NYU had agreed to a settlement with OCR after then-student Adela Cojab filed a complaint the year before alleging the university had improperly handled antisemitism on campus. She had filed the complaint after NYU’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter received the university’s President’s Service Award in April 2019 despite a member from the group being charged in April 2018 for assaulting a pro-Israel student during a Yom HaAtzmaut rave. Part of that agreement included OCR supervising NYU to make sure it complied with the terms of the settlement; that supervision expired on May 31. . Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin and Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi wrote in a May 31 letter to OCR that NYU continues to have an “anti-Semitism problem.” “As widely reported, a dozen student organizations at NYU’s law school signed a letter defending terrorist violence against Israeli civilians and engaging in classical anti-Semitic tropes about the ‘Zionist grip on the media,’” the letter stated. “Jewish students who complained were ridiculed and called ‘babies.’” Additionally, Lewin and Traldi noted that there have been recent instances of antisemitic graffiti––including swastikas––on NYU’s buildings and that NYU Law’s Review of Law and Social Change endorsed “the anti-Semitic BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] movement.” . “NYU’s President recently issued a statement denouncing the conduct that prompted the most recent complaints,” Lewin and Traldi wrote. “That statement, however, failed to recognize that for many students at NYU, Zionism is an integral component of their Jewish identity and their ethnic and ancestral heritage and that these students must be able to fully engage in the University’s opportunities while openly expressing identification with Israel. NYU must commit to safeguarding the ability of Jewish students to fully engage in campus life without having to hide this key component of their Jewish identity.” They added that “these continuing expressions of anti-Semitism reflect that until NYU fully complies with the Resolution Agreement, OCR must not abdicate its oversight responsibilities.” . Cojab, who is currently studying at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law and co-hosts the “American-ish Show: Daughters of the Diaspora,” backed the Brandeis Center’s call for more OCR oversight. “In their own resolution agreement, it says: 1. They will adopt a new policy on antisemitism, 2. That the policy will have examples on even what is not antisemitism, and [the] third part is trainings that have to do with the policy and how to implement it,” she told the Journal in a phone interview. “They implemented a policy only nine months ago; they were supposed to implement it two whole years ago. So they only have nine months of data to work with. They also didn’t really publicize that there’s a new policy so how can people express content or discontent with it? There’s already been students who have been discontent with NYU’s reaction to antisemitism in the last three months and they didn’t even the policy to point to and they didn’t implement any trainings––not a single one––on their new policy. It’s just kind of like OCR ending their observation period now is premature. There is no data to see if NYU complied, let alone if it was effective.” . A Google Forms letter sent to NYU Law School of Law Dean Trevor Morrison from anonymous Jewish students expressing concern that a member of NYU Law Students for Justice in Palestine (LSJP) chapter who recently graduated had used COASES––the student law listserv––to say: “to all the Zionists, we’re keeping receipts” and that this member and other LSJP members “proudly and explicitly justified the targeting of family and friends of members of our law school as ‘the Palestinian right to resist occupation’ and refused to condemn the Tel Aviv terror attack because “Palestinians are not obligated to engage in racialized ‘nonviolence’ theory.” The LSJP member also liked a social media post stating “Long live the Intifada” after the terror attack, per the letter. The letter also noted that LSJP had said in a listserv email that the “Zionist grip on the media is omnipresent.” . “It is our contention that speech that, in any other context and by other speakers, would have been swiftly condemned as the glorification and incitement of violence was instead supported by a number of student groups – each representing a large swath of the student body – in part because the speakers have been institutionally distinguished,” the letter stated. “Absent clarification to the contrary, NYU Law, through its chosen representatives, has made clear to the broader NYU community that it is commendable – or, at the very least, acceptable – to advocate for violent resistance against Israelis.” . According to NYU Local, a student-run blog, Morrison responded to the letter by issuing an email “stating that within the NYU community, debate should be conducted in a respectful manner” and that “phrases like ‘Zionist grip on the media’ was close to the antisemitic trope that Jewish people control the media.” Morrison also acknowledged that “the administration may well choose to consider alternative communications platforms with different functionalities.” NYU President Andrew Hamilton also issued a statement calling the “Zionist grip” comment “profoundly troubling.” . LSJP tweeted in response to the letter at the time, “We are disappointed that some of our classmates, the administration, & media have focused on targeting students who speak out against apartheid, rather than condemning the violent Israeli occupation.” . An NYU law student told the Journal that he and another student were collecting signatures for the letter when he started receiving harassing messages online that contained “threats” and stated things like “from the river to the sea.” The student claimed he told the administration about it around a month and a half ago but hasn’t heard back from them. “I know other schools in the past have had a situation where a student has been harassed through Google Forms and they were able to find out who it was because it was on their servers, so it just seems clear that NYU isn’t really looking after its Jewish students,” the student said. “If this happened to another group, there’s just no way that an administration would just sit idly by letting students get ran over and harassed.” The student also expressed disappointment that the university’s subsequent investigation into the harassment has been “non-transparent.” When reached for comment, an NYU Law spokesperson pointed to Morrison’s past statements on the matter. . The student added that “a lot of students don’t feel particularly safe” on campus. “People are scared to even say, ‘I stand with Israel.’” . A recent NYU Law graduate told the Journal that toward the end of his tenure at the school “you could already sense the sentiments shifting away from Jewish support and in other areas, so the fact that Alyza [Lewin] and the Brandeis Center are really taking a lead here––I don’t think people are really grasping the importance of this case because I think everyone’s going to follow NYU’s actions.” . Cojab lamented that “not much has changed” since she graduated from NYU. “Students feel as disconnected from the administration, students feel as unsafe as they did before,” she said, adding that NYU’s antisemitism policy “doesn’t include anti-Zionism in their definition of antisemitism, and that’s very problematic… if what I went through at NYU two years ago wouldn’t have fallen under their new antisemitism policy, then what’s the point of their policy? It’s just a pleasantry.” . NYU spokesman John Beckman defended the university, telling The Algemeiner that the Brandeis Center’s claims are false and that the university “met every mutually-agreed upon deadline; annually submitted reports to OCR about student conduct cases involving discrimination or harassment; and submitted its proposed revisions to its non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy for OCR’s review and approval on time, promptly adopted the approved version, and sent it to everyone on campus a year ago.” Beckman also touted the university as a “leader” in fighting antisemitism on campus, citing an April antisemitism summit held on campus as an example.
Several organizations have webinars on subjects related to the Brandeis Center’s mission which are open to any interested viewer. These may be either live webinars or webinars which are accessible after they have been broadcast. This month we highlight three organizations’ webinars. EMET, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, has moved its seminar series to a weekly webinar format. This past year speakers have included: Richard Goldberg, a former Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction for the White House National Security Council, speaking on Iranian Issues, Richard L. Cravatts, author and Brandeis Center Director, speaking on “The Campus War Against Israel,” and Rafeal Madoff, founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, who spoke on “FDR, the Media and the Holocaust.” To access these past talks and register for future ones, please go to https://emetonline.org/. ISGAP, The Institute for the Study for the Study of Global Antisemitism & Policy, also has a vibrant online webinar program that can be accessed on a live or delayed basis. Recent speakers have included Natan Sharansky, speaking on “Israel, American Weakness and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine,” David Hirsh addressing “Antizionism: An Ideology that Makes Israel Symbolic of, and Central to, All that is Bad in the World,” and David Patterson, addressing “Intersectionality and the Academy’s Acceptance of Antisemitism.” To view these past webinars and register for future ones, please go to https://isgap.org Stand With Us, Supporting Israel and Fighting Antisemitism Around the World, has its Stand With Us TV which features a wide variety of programming, including the presentations from its 2022 Conference, talks from speakers such as Andrew Pessin on “The Toxic Rise of Campus Cancel Culture,” and presentations relating to Israeli history and culture. This year Stand with Us is also running a CLE series which offers California MCLE credit. The first speaker in that series is Brandeis Center’s President and General Counsel Alyza Lewin, who presents on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) & Erasive Anti-Semitism.” The Stand With Us link is at https://www.standwithus.tv/.