Published in Algemeiner on June 1, 2022 . A nonprofit legal advocacy group is calling on the United States Department of Education (DOE) to continue monitoring New York University’s (NYU) anti-discrimination policies, two years after an arrangement for federal oversight began. . The DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) began its review of NYU in September 2020 as part of a settlement to resolve charges that school officials declined to act on alleged incidents of antisemitism. Per the agreement, the administration pledged to reform its anti-discrimination policies, including to specifically address harassment of Jews related to their Zionist beliefs. . On Tuesday — as the end of the academic year marked the earliest that the monitoring period could be deemed complete — the Louis D. Brandeis Center argued in a letter to DOE Secretary Catherine Lhamon that the school had not yet met those obligations. . “In the current circumstance, it would be derelict to permit NYU to run out the clock on OCR oversight, and, thereby, undermine OCR’s critical work,” Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin and Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi wrote. . The legal advocacy center said that although NYU updated its anti-discrimination policies, they still do not address the forms of antisemitism that prompted the OCR investigation, including “frivolous” noise complaints against Jewish students, vandalism, and activists disrupting pro-Israel events. . Lewin and Traldi also said that the polices do not proscribe acts like one that occurred this academic year — when a pro-Palestinian student activist group asserted that the “Zionist grip on the media is omnipresent,” among other statements that would fall under the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. . “NYU students still feel emboldened to engage in precisely the sort of antisemitic conduct which prompted the agreement in the first place,” the pair continued, arguing that rising antisemitism on college campuses compounds the importance of enforcing civil rights protections. . Adela Cojab, a former NYU student who filed the original 2019 complaint against the school, said in a statement, “I, along with current and future Jewish students, am placing my trust in OCR to enforce Title VI, oversee university compliance, and ensure those under its protected classes, Jewish students included, have access to an academic environment free from discrimination and harassment.” . On Wednesday, NYU spokesman John Beckman said the school was “deeply disappointed” by the Brandeis Center’s “incorrect” allegations, maintaining that the university has “fulfilled its obligations under its agreement with OCR.” . “[NYU] 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 told The Algemeiner. . He added that New York University “utterly rejects antisemitism, and is a leader in combatting it on campus,” pointing to a prominent antisemitism summit recently hosted on its campus and its large academic presence in Israel.
Opinion article by Nicole Rosenzweig published June 3, 2022 in Algemeiner Many people profess that they support Jewish people — but only if those Jewish people reject their ancestral connection to the Land of Israel. This conditional support excludes Jewish people who view ethnic ties to Israel as an integral part of their Jewish identity. According to a 2020 report by the Pew Research Center, roughly 80 percent of American Jews say that caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them. . My experience serving in the student government at Duke University has given me a glimpse into the double standard applied to Jewish and pro-Israel students on college campuses. . In November of 2021, the president of the Duke Student Government (DSG) vetoed the recognition of Duke Students Supporting Israel (SSI) without any justifiable basis in the documents or by-laws governing DSG proceedings. The DSG Senate voted to uphold the veto, after a three-hour hearing. As one of the few Jewish students in student government, I felt obligated to speak up. I gave a speech in front of the DSG Senate — at a highly emotional, hostile hearing — to encourage my fellow senators to recognize Duke Students Supporting Israel. I explained to the DSG Senate that the veto was an unjust, arbitrary threat to free speech that applied a double standard to a pro-Israel group led by Jewish students. . Ultimately, only three students voted against the SSI veto — the only three Jewish senators in the assembly. . After this, it became clear to me that we needed a mutual understanding of what constitutes antisemitism, and how the world’s oldest hatred takes many forms. In the months after the Duke SSI veto was upheld, I collaborated with my fellow senators to pass a DSG Resolution to “Define and Condemn Anti-Semitism,” in which we adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. Colleges often lack the common language to identify antisemitism in its various forms. As IHRA acknowledges, “in order to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is.” Universities should start by codifying a definition of antisemitism that is representative of Jewish students’ experiences. . The IHRA definition has already been adopted by 32 countries, as well as more than 30 university student governments. Campus adoption of the IHRA definition alone will not eradicate antisemitism, but it is a productive first step that acknowledges the lived experiences of the Jewish people by committing to combating antisemitism in its various forms. . Students need to be educated about antisemitism, including how this hatred manifests. It is imperative for people to center the experiences of Jewish students on these matters, rather than trying to define bigotry against Jews from an outside lens. As the ones being targeted by antisemitism, Jewish people have the right to shape the discourse surrounding antisemitism, just as other communities have the right to inform what constitutes bigotry against them. . Beyond education and a mutual understanding of what antisemitism is, the next step is protecting the rights of Jewish students. When Duke SSI was de-recognized by our student government, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law wrote a letter to the president of Duke University outlining the institution’s obligations to protect Jewish students in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Federal education regulations. Schools must enforce these anti-discrimination protections, and stand with their Jewish students unequivocally. As a result of efforts by student leaders and organizations such as the Brandeis Center and the Israel on Campus Coalition, the Duke SSI was recognized as a student organization on equal standing in February 2022. . Antisemitism is not unique to any particular campus; anti-Jewish bigotry poses a growing threat worldwide. A Brandeis Center 2021 survey of “openly Jewish” students found that 65% felt unsafe on campus, 50% actively hid their Jewish identity, and that concern about safety increased the longer that students remained enrolled. . Support for the Jewish community should not be conditioned on the rejection of ethnic ties to Zionism and Israel. Universities must defend the rights of Jewish and pro-Israel students unconditionally, starting with the adoption of common language regarding the definition, types, and forms of antisemitism. . Nicole Rosenzweig is a junior at Duke University, and serves on Duke’s student government.
Published in JNS on May 31, 2022 . The Deborah Project is suing multiple organizations connected to the Los Angeles Unified School District for trying to circumvent parents and the democratic process to push a radical, anti-Semitic curriculum in Los Angeles public schools. . The organization’s legal director, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, and president and co-founder Jerome Marcus brought the complaint to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 12 on behalf of Jewish, Israeli and Zionist teachers and parents at the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) concerned about the adoption of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (LESMC). . That curriculum, according to the complaint, violates state and federal law by discriminating against Jewish residents of California—namely, “Americans and Middle Eastern American Jews who embrace the religion’s foundational belief in Zionism.” . After years of fighting over the details, California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 101 into law on Oct. 8. The law would require all public and charter schools in California to offer an ethnic-studies course for their students if it does not already have one by the 2025-26 academic year, in addition to making it a requirement for graduation by 2030. . Originally, a group of ethnic-studies experts was brought in to form the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Advisory Committee to create the model curriculum. The first draft of the committee’s work caused an outcry in the Jewish community, the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, Jewish Federations of North America, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and other groups. . The resulting model curriculum—based on critical race theory (CRT)—emphasized the experience of Jews as “conditional whiteness” and “racial privilege.” . The draft curriculum made no reference to anti-Semitism and completely omitted contributions by Jews through American and Middle Eastern history. It characterized Israel as a Jewish colonial state and included a section some viewed as endorsing the BDS movement. . Newsom vetoed the legislation, sending it back to the assembly with instructions to revise the curriculum. . With consultation from the stakeholders, and Jewish and other minority groups, a new model curriculum was developed. The law, which follows the California code by allowing school districts the ability to either choose the state’s recommended curriculum or adopt their own within the law’s guidelines, specifically forbids the inclusion of the elements of the initial model curriculum rejected through the lawmaking process. . Every member of the state’s model curriculum committee resigned and joined together to form the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium (LESMCC). They wrote a letter attacking the state’s new curriculum as inauthentic. . LESMCC, which is named as a defendant in the complaint, claimed that the Jewish organizations represented the repression of voices of people of color by white supremacy. . According to the complaint, the organization began working covertly to undermine the state’s guardrails and inject the Liberated curriculum into public schools without the approval of the state assembly or Department of Education. . The complaint further says that while California’s goal of creating an ethnic-studies requirement was to “promote critical thinking and rigorous analysis of history, systems of oppression and the status quo in an effort to generate discussions on futurity and imagine new possibilities,” LESMC’s stated goals were to “critique empire, white supremacy, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of society.” . “In other words, defendants don’t see ethnic studies having as its goal a positive future for all,” the complaint stated. “Defendants’ goal for ethnic studies is to create a forum for some formerly excluded groups to call out and punish those they view as former ‘oppressors,’ and ignore—or worse—anyone else who doesn’t fit defendants’ template.” . ‘Determined to win through the back door’ In the Liberated model, which is the only form of ethnic studies that members of the LESMC consider acceptable, the focus is placed exclusively on the elevation of four racialized groups—black, Latino, Native Americans and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI). . Middle Easterners are lumped into the AAPI category but include only the non-Jews, ignoring, as the complaint states often, the Middle Eastern Jews who suffered religious persecution and actual ethnic cleansing by Arabs, Turks, Iranians and others. But LESMCC views the state’s curriculum as a version of multiculturalism, which it considers bad. . During a meeting of the district’s union, the United Teachers of Los Angeles’s (UTLA) Ethnic Studies Panel (ESP), one of the proponents of LESMC, ridiculed the California State Board of Education’s Ethnic Studies Guidelines. . Attempts to infiltrate the curriculum in LAUSD, as well as other districts in the state, also raise questions about transparency. . California law requires that new teaching material be publicly disclosed and adopted after publication and two public meetings at which parents and the general public can be heard. . LESMC advises teachers to only disclose their material to administrators or parents who they believe will be supportive, and earlier on its website, stated that sometimes it’s important to “fly under the radar.” . The group also warned educators of Liberated studies to watch out for the influence of JCRC, ADL, Jewish Federations and other Zionist organizations in their communities before disclosing what they teach in their classrooms to parents and local stakeholders. . “We know it’s being taught in the schools. What we’re saying is that the Los Angeles Unified School District has not approved this content,” said Lowenthal Marcus. “They’ve never had hearings on it because they’re not allowed to. Nonetheless, teachers are being trained in it and the educators—online or out loud in various panels and seminars—are saying the other stuff is illegitimate, you cannot teach the other stuff. You have to have Palestine in your curriculum. You have to have everything through a CRT lens—the critical race theory lens.” . LESMCC is spearheading efforts throughout the state to make LESMC part of the unofficial curriculum in many districts. . “It’s good that the consortium, whatever they call themselves, is now going to be forced to defend themselves both in court and in the court of public opinion. Because there does not seem to be much doubt that they were unhappy with the result of the democratic process modifying their proposed curriculum,” said Marc Stern, chief legal officer of the American Jewish Committee. “And we know from a place called Castro Valley and now Los Angeles—at least if the allegations in the complaint prove to be true—is that they’re determined to win through the back door what they lost through the front door.” . According to the complaint, the LESMC also attacks other widely accepted ideas, such as capitalism, traditional family and the territorial integrity of the lower 48 states. One of its stated goals is to help the students become activists. . The UTLA, which represents teachers employed by LAUSD, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, as it is an active proponent of the LESMC and its leadership expends union dues paid by the members to promote the adoption of the LESMC. . ‘A political settler-colonial ideology’ At an April 13 meeting of the UTLA ESP, testimony was heard from Celine Qussiny, an ethnic-studies expert who described herself as a member of the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), an organization that supports the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is designated a terrorist organization by the United States. . Qussiny, an employee of the Virginia-based U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, began her presentation by stating: “We have to always be confronting Zionism.” . She described Israel as a fascist dictatorship and said when she talks about Zionism, she’s “talking about a political settler-colonial ideology that justifies ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their ancestral homeland.” . She also called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism “really dangerous because it criminalizes any criticism of Israel, and that Israel is a colonial state founded on ethnic cleansing, on mass displacement and ongoing land theft.” . Other defendants in the complaint include Teresa Montaño, a professor at California State University Northridge, vice president of the California Teachers Union and secretary of LESMCC. . Montaño, one of the authors of the state’s original model curriculum, accused the California Department of Education of caving to “white-supremacist, right-wing, conservative organizations,” including the ADL. . In its 2019 collective bargaining negotiation with the LAUSD, the UTLA got a guarantee for the creation of an LAUSD-UTLA Ethnic Studies Committee, on which the UTLA has the right to appoint four members. The committee is authorized to review and suggest professional development, curriculum and teaching materials purchased or developed by the LAUSD. . UTLA appointed Montaño, Guadalupe Cardona, Melina Abdullah and Roxanna Duenas as its representatives. . Cardona is the co-founder, chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the consortium, and is an ethnic-studies teacher at Edward R. Roybal Learning Center in the district. She is accused by the complaint of using LESMC materials in her classroom. Dueñas is a teacher at Roosevelt High School and is also believed to be currently teaching using the LESMC model, including its material on Israel. . Abdullah has on a number of occasions demonstrated her hatred towards Jews with the Deborah Project’s complaint citing a few examples. . For instance, in a tweet, Abdullah said “we must dismantle patriarchy! Specifically Jewish patriarchy offending Muslims & controlling our economy & campuses!” adding that “… more & more Jews [were] invading campuses, causing islamophobia, racism, & intolerance.” . The complaint’s last defendant is UTLA president Cecily Myart-Cruz, who the complaint calls a staunch proponent of inserting LESMC into the LAUSD curriculum from “early childhood education” through graduate studies. Myart-Cruz has stated that authentic ethnic studies do not represent “cultural diversity” or multiculturalism and that the curriculum adopted by the state wasn’t ethnic studies. . The complaint contends that the defendants are violating California state law, which requires schools to be free of hostility to all races, religions and nationalities, by working to introduce LESMC into the L.A. public-school curriculum; violating state laws pertaining to how new curricula is introduced; and violating the provisions of the state’s Ethnic Studies Law, which expressly forbid the inclusion of the anti-Semitic elements of the original ethnic-studies model curriculum. . The complaint also accuses the defendants of violating federal law, such as the equal protection clauses of the 14th and First amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funds or other federal financial assistance. . “One of the defendants’ clearly expressed goals in seeking to insert the Palestine portion of the LESMC into California’s public schools is precisely to expunge the idea of Zionism and the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel, from the public square, on the ground that defendants believe they have a right to teach and to induce as many other people as possible to teach to believe ‘their truth’ that Zionism and the Jewish State, Israel, are evil; that Israelis are oppressive and genocidal land thieves; that Israel has no right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish People; and that the Jewish people have no right to a nation-state of their own,” the complaint states. . ‘We are asking for transparency’ Lowenthal Marcus said the goal of the complaint was to ensure that the district does not allow the unauthorized curriculum to be taught, which violates both federal and state law. . “The goal is for there not to be this content taught to public-school children, and that any effort at putting any of the liberated content that has to do with a lot of other things other than just Israel and Jews has to be made public. They have to disclose what they’re teaching in the schools. And that’s all that we’re asking for,” she said. “We’re not asking for damages, we’re not asking for anyone to be fired, but we are asking for transparency, and we’re asking for the removal of material that violates the law … .” . Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center and former assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights (who is not related to those who filed the lawsuit), said that he’s seeing school districts across California that are shutting out parents from the involvement they should have and raising issues of transparency under California’s education code. . The adverse views of Jews and Israeli-Americans found in the curricula also raise legal questions regarding California and federal law, as seen in the complaint. . Los Angeles, being an early adopter of ethnic studies, is already offering it to students in their classrooms ahead of the timeline mandated by the law. It is one of the earliest districts to have litigation brought against some of its members but unlikely to be the last. . The district’s already established ethnic-studies curriculum is accepted among some Jewish organizations. . While it’s too early to say that the complaint will be successful, Marcus said he hopes that other districts take notice. . “I’m hoping that other school districts see this complaint and realize that they need to take action to involve parents, including Jewish parents, more effectively,” he said. “That they provide the level of transparency that California state law requires. And that they avoid using curricula that are blatantly anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist.” . The language of A.B. 101, noted Marcus, is somewhat vague in what it prohibits—not expressly prohibiting “Liberated ethnic studies” and allowing room for litigation. . “Liberated Ethnic Studies, however, is an extreme, left-wing political approach to the issue, which is based on some of the currently trendy notions of intersectionality, as well as a more generally radical political perspective,” said Marcus. “It tends to be anti-capitalist as well as anti-Zionist, and it tends to include some of the elements that are sometimes referred to under the rubric of critical race theory.” . For years, he said, observers have watched anti-Semitism increase on college campuses across the country, especially in California. This anti-Semitism is particularly pronounced in ethnic-studies departments. Now, he sees the effort to inject it into public schools. . “One of the things that is most alarming about ethnic studies in California is that it provides the first look at what it means for the campus anti-Semitism to be funneled into the public schools and then to affect a greater number of people,” said Marcus. . Even if districts don’t openly say that they’ve adopted a Liberated model for their ethnic studies curriculum, elements of it are still able to seep in. . Lowenthal Marcus said the members of the consortium believe themselves to be the only true experts in ethnic studies and have created institutes to train educators. . The curriculum is already causing damage, with one of the plaintiffs represented by the Deborah Project’s lawsuit—a parent—having had their children asking the teacher why anti-Semitism was not being discussed and being reprimanded for it. . The complaint includes many paragraphs explaining Zionism and how it is inseparable from Judaism, as a common defense against accusations of anti-Semitism is to say that opposition to Zionism is not hatred towards Jews and is separate from the religion. . “I think everyone recognizes [traditions like] the breaking of the glass [at Jewish weddings], which signifies the destruction of the Temple, and saying ‘Next year in Jerusalem’ [at the end of the Passover seder.] And for those who observe the fast days, most of them have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem or with respect to sovereignty in the land,” said Lowenthal Marcus. “So it just permeates the entire thing. … They don’t get to decide what Judaism is.” . Stern noted that while debate exists even among Jewish progressive groups, “most of the Jewish community appears to believe correctly that the idea that the only nationality that’s not entitled to a state—the Jews—is anti-Semitic,” he said. . ‘Everybody has to jump through their hoops’ Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, director of the AMCHA Initiative, a campus anti-Semitism watchdog group that has been following the development from the beginning, said she was concerned about the creative methods that proponents of Liberated, or critical ethnic studies, have been using to infiltrate public education. . Her organization recently was successful in stalling the creation of an admission requirement for Liberated ethnic studies at the University of California system, which would have the aftereffect of public and charter schools adopting that version of the curriculum. . She’s also closely watching another piece of legislation from the author of A.B. 101—State Assemblymember Jose Medina, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly Higher Education Committee and is a member of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus—that would require certification for ethnic-studies educators as opposed to it being allowed to be taught by those certified in social studies. . “This whole idea of teacher certification is another mechanism for Liberated to really control everything you say,” said Rossman-Benjamin. . “The ethnic-studies industry, these guys have lifetime jobs now,” she said. “There’s complete job security. They have complete control over the state because everybody has to jump through their hoops.” . Rossman-Benjamin said she and her group opposed the ethnic-studies bill even with the guardrails signed into law since school districts still have a lot of purview over their curricula and teaching methods. . “[It’s] not just their curriculum but their teacher training. In some ways, a curriculum is almost irrelevant if you have teachers that are trained in this particular approach to ethnic studies,” she said. “Because they can make up their own curriculum, it’s going to be every bit as bad as the Liberated curriculum. The problem is that they’ve already insinuated themselves into many of the school districts up and down the state.” . Marcus agreed, saying there is no free market of ideas in the ethnic-studies departments throughout California and the United States. . “This is part of the general campus culture in which only a limited number of views are permitted,” he said. “You end up getting a fairly narrow amount of groupthink. So in ethnic studies, as in some academic disciplines, you get a fairly narrow range of ideas which are highly politicized and politically radical.”
Opinion article by Kenneth L. Marcus published May 28, 2022 in the New York Sun The Biden administration will face at the end of the month a test. New York University is nearing the end of its monitoring period under its settlement of a federal antisemitism complaint filed during the Trump administration. The Biden administration will be tempted, prematurely, to release the university from federal monitoring. It should not do so. This is no small case. It certainly caught my attention, as head of the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, when then-NYU student Adela Cojab Moadeb told me about the physical assault, harassment, and pervasive hostility that Jewish students faced on her campus. I was not the only one to notice. In December 2019, President Trump invited Adela, a Mexican American Jewish immigrant, onstage at the Israeli American Council’s National Summit to tell her story. President Trump justly lauded this courageous young woman for standing up in the face of hostility and bigotry. In Adela’s telling, this recognition did more than raise public awareness over problems at NYU. It helped to “elevate the voices of Jewish students nationwide, voices that up until now were not sufficiently protected under anti-discrimination laws.” It did even more than that. Three days later, President Trump signed the game-changing Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. This order, which Ms. Moadeb’s experience no doubt influenced, remains the most important tool available to federal officials in their effort to protect the rights of Jewish and non-Jewish students alike. To its credit, NYU agreed to federal monitoring. Federal oversight has evidently had a salutary effect. In April, NYU’s president, Andrew Hamilton, spoke out against antisemitism on his campus, which he said was “as repugnant as any other form” of bigotry. Other NYU administrators have sent similar messages. Even if such words were intended, as some have suggested, to appease federal regulators, they have helped. The problem is that NYU still has what NYU law student Tal Fortgang has called a “big, fat Jew-hatred problem.” Anti-Jewish conspiracy theory is casually spread at NYU, where the law school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine recently issued a statement criticizing the “Zionist grip on the media.” For good measure, the group went on to smear Ashkenazic Jews as white supremacists. Nor was this incident anomalous. Just a few months before, NYU’s Review of Law and Social Change embraced the antisemitic movement to boycott Israel. NYU’s administration said it was “troubled and disappointed.” Yet it took no apparent action. In part, the problem is that NYU has never done what it promised the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights that it would do. NYU committed to amend its anti-discrimination policy to expressly prohibit antisemitic conduct as defined in the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. NYU hasn’t done this. Instead, NYU’s revised policy excerpts some of the Order’s prefatory language without using the Order’s all-important guiding examples. Similarly, NYU fails to describe “the forms of anti-Semitism that can manifest in the University environment” as it promised to do. Nor does NYU’s revised policy show any awareness of the behaviors which prompted Adela Cohab Moadeb’s complaint and the ensuing federal investigation. If this reflects the approach to antisemitism of NYU’s leadership, it is no wonder that ugly incidents recur there. This is not just an NYU problem. These problems reflect a nationwide trend. The Anti-Defamation League’s most recent national audit reported an “all-time high” in documented antisemitic incidents. The Louis D. Brandeis Center’s recent survey shows that even strongly self-identified Jewish students are often afraid to express their Jewish identity, given the hostile environments they frequently face. In response, nearly forty members of Congress warned the Department of Education that “Jewish students need assistance and protection from the growing threat of antisemitism.” For the Biden administration to discontinue monitoring at this time would send the wrong message. It would signal to higher education that the administration is not serious about addressing anti-Jewish bigotry. And it would say to Jewish students that they are on their own. This would be an unacceptable way to treat our college students. NYU and the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights need to finish the job they have just begun.
“In the current circumstance, it would be derelict to permit NYU to run out the clock on OCR oversight and, thereby, undermine OCR’s critical work,” wrote the Brandeis Center, warning the university has not “addressed its anti-Semitism problem or fully complied with the Agreement.” The Louis D. Brandeis Center Issues Press Release Contact: Nicole Rosen ~ 202-309-5724 Washington, D.C., May 31, 2022: As New York University (NYU) finds itself embroiled in yet another anti-Semitism scandal, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, today, urged the U.S. Department of Education not to terminate its oversight of NYU. Federal oversight, which the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and NYU had agreed would cover two academic years after NYU amended its antidiscrimination policy, could conclude as early as today. .“In the current circumstance, it would be derelict to permit NYU to run out the clock on OCR oversight and, thereby, undermine OCR’s critical work,” wrote the Brandeis Center, warning the university has not “addressed its anti-Semitism problem or fully complied with the Agreement.” In 2020, NYU signed an agreement to resolve “without further investigation” a complaint filed with the Department of Education alleging NYU has not done enough to prevent “a hostile environment” for Jewish students. Under the settlement NYU committed to specific measures to ensure anti-Semitism did not persist on campus and agreed to report its progress to OCR through at least today, May 31, 2022. Yet just weeks ago a new anti-Semitism scandal arose at NYU when Students for Justice in Palestine struck again. SJP sent school-wide emails invoking the age-old anti-Semitic trope that the “Zionist grip on the media is omnipresent,” advocating for terrorist violence against innocent Israeli civilians, and dismissing nonviolence as a “racialized theory.” The SJP statement was then endorsed by nearly a dozen NYU student groups. Since the incident, numerous complaints have been filed with the university. The Brandeis Center notes in its letter that the 2020 settlement provided for federal oversight of just these types of incidents and complaints, and it requires NYU to submit documentation to OCR on its student discipline process and certify that “the University has treated and resolved every allegation of anti-Semitism as defined in Section 2(a)(i) of Exec. Order No. 13899 in the same way as any allegation of any other discrimination or harassment covered by the Policy and/or the University’s student conduct rules.” The Brandeis Center argues that ending the federal monitoring and supervision of NYU would be “absurd” and dangerously premature at a time when, as noted in a recent news article, “many of its Jewish students feel under attack.” In addition, notes the Brandeis Center in its letter, NYU has also failed to fulfill numerous commitments under the agreement. For example, it has not properly described how anti-Semitism can manifest itself in the campus environment or modified its anti-discrimination policy to explicitly include discrimination against and harassment of Jews on the basis of their ancestral and ethnic identity, including their actual or perceived affiliation with Israel – a common contemporary manifestation of anti-Semitism and the source of much of the harassment that prompted the agreement. The complaint was prompted by acts including attempts to prevent Jewish students from expressing their ethnic identity; vandalizing symbols associated with that identity; and disrupting events. Yet, none of these behaviors are mentioned in the policy. NYU also fails to include examples related to Holocaust denial or distortion; the demonization or delegitimization of Israel; accusations of dual loyalty targeted at Jews; attempts to hold Jews collectively responsible for perceived offenses; or violent anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which have fueled several recent hate crimes in the United States. Its examples instead focus on the targeting of students due to their physical appearance, religious dress, or country of origin. In addition, NYU appears to have failed to meet the deadlines it agreed to, to amend and disseminate to the NYU community its revised discrimination and harassment policy, leaving minimal time for the university or OCR to evaluate the effectiveness of its new policy.. “To discontinue monitoring in this context would send precisely the wrong message: it would tell Jewish students and their harassers that even on campuses under OCR supervision, the government’s civil rights watchdogs will not require universities to keep their word and protect Jewish students facing continued harassment. These students are on their own. This is an unacceptable response to discrimination and harassment,” concluded the Brandeis Center.. The original complaint, filed on behalf of then NYU senior Adela Cojab, alleged “two years of extreme antisemitism on the NYU campus which has created an intolerable and unlawful hostile atmosphere for Jewish students” due to a slew of anti-Semitic incidents instigated by members of Students for Justice in Palestine. In one incident a student tweeted he wanted all “Zionists to die” and another incident involved a physical attack on pro-Israel students in Washington Square Park. SJP also attempted to shut down a student celebration of Israel’s 70th birthday. Although SJP’s actions blatantly violated numerous NYU policies, NYU failed to hold SJP accountable and even presented the group with a service award. The complaint made headlines as the first to be brought after President Trump issued an executive order addressing rising anti-Semitism on campuses nationwide. “NYU is in the unique position to lead by example and take a strong stance against anti-Semitism, in all of its forms– which is precisely why I am saddened to see the school place such little weight and urgency to their own Resolution Agreement,” stated Cojab. “To Jewish students, the Resolution Agreement was meant to be a step forward, a sign that NYU, and OCR, were working to properly address and prevent growing anti-Jewish hatred, but the university’s seemingly aloof response makes it seem like it was a mere pleasantry. I, along with current and future Jewish students, am placing my trust in OCR to enforce Title VI, oversee university compliance, and ensure those under its protected classes, Jewish students included, have access to an academic environment free from discrimination and harassment.” .The Anti-Defamation League recently determined that 2021 saw an “all-time high” in documented anti-Semitic incidents in America. A 2021 poll of openly Jewish college students revealed 65% felt unsafe on campus and roughly 50% felt the need to hide their Jewish identity. And dozens of Members of Congress recently urged OCR to address rising anti-Semitism on college and university campuses. .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
Opinion Article by Kenneth L. Marcus, published May 28, 2022 in the South Florida Sun Sentinel . Let me be the first to wish you a Happy Jewish American Heritage Month. The month is almost over. Nevertheless, Reader, I know I am the first to greet you. . Proclaimed by President George W. Bush in 2006, after energetic advocacy by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jewish American Heritage Month recognizes the more than 350-year history of Jewish contributions to American culture. At any rate, that’s what it’s supposed to do. . Although recognized by President Joe Biden and the Library of Congress, JAMH has become the Rodney Dangerfield of commemorative occasions. It gets no respect. . The U.S. Department of State, for example, honors nine history and heritage months on its public website. These months recognize women, LGBTQ, Asian, Hispanic, Caribbean, Arab and African Americans, among others. Jewish Americans, however, are forgotten. This is surprising, since our Secretary of State is a Jew. . Other great institutions offer Jews the same slight. Harvard, for example, has chosen this year to honor eight heritage months and seven identity recognition days. None are for the children of Israel. . The most extraordinary recognizer of commemorative days, weeks, and months might be the U.S. Census Bureau. Our census-takers offer “Stats for Stories” with helpful data to “assist the media in story mining and producing content” on dozens of observances. Spoiler alert: Jewish American Heritage Month doesn’t make the cut. . In fairness to the Bureau, it is understandable that they rank some commemorations higher than ours. Take Mother’s Day or National Police Week. No one wants to piss off either of those groups. . National Poultry Day is harder to swallow. How do we rank lower than chickens? Or consider this: The Census Bureau has stats for Doughnut Day but not for bagels. Or for the people who gave bagels to the world. Other commemorations are more mysterious. Single people get both a month and a week. February 15 was Singles Awareness Day. Unmarried and Single Americans Week will stretch from September 19-25. Are single people supposed to appreciate themselves? Or are married people supposed to appreciate them? And who thinks that will end well? . Why should we care? Presidential proclamations establishing Jewish American Heritage Month do not have the force of law and are entirely symbolic. Nevertheless, symbols matter. . It is important to recognize the contributions the Jewish people have made to this country, from Leonard Bernstein in music to Albert Einstein in science to my own organization’s namesake in law. . As importantly, such celebrations can provided needed relief in a time of record-setting antisemitism. We need positive messaging after an onslaught of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda. . Elan Carr, the former Special Envoy to Combat Anti-Semitism, argues that celebrations of Jewish heritage can strike a blow against Jew-hatred. He reasons that the opposite of antisemitism is philosemitism. By this, he means appreciation, respect and affection for the Jewish people. . Some disagree. The current academic consensus is that antisemitism and philosemitism are not opposites. Rather, both involve stereotypes and generalizations. Some academics even joke, “What is a philosemite? An antisemite who likes Jews.” . Yale scholar Maurice Samuels says this doesn’t mean that philosemites are all antisemites in disguise. Rather, both groups treat Jews as “others,” projecting fantasies of the Jew that they use to form their own sense of identity. . Samuels and Carr can both be right. It may be true, as Samuels argues, that philosemitism has dangers. Nevertheless, it is surely also true that hate and bias of all kinds, including antisemitism, can be reduced when people develop mutual admiration and respect. . This is especially true today, when Jewish identity is increasingly undermined by the rise of a new “erasive antisemitism,” which negates the right of Jews to define our own identity and experience. . We see this frequently among college students and instructors who come to the Brandeis Center for help. They may work at institutions like Stanford University, where Jewish staff have been pushed to join a “whiteness accountability” affinity group, created for “staff who hold privilege via white identity.” . They may study at places like Brooklyn College, where Jewish students are told that they are white, privileged, systemic racists. One student said, “I’m a Hispanic person of color, and yet even I was told by faculty and administrators in the program that because I am Jewish, I enjoy the privileges of whiteness and that my skin color would not save me.” . These sorts of diversity programs often omit Jewish heritage from their commemorative occasions for the same reason that they forget Jews everywhere else. They do not understand antisemitism or grasp why they must address it. Worse, they may be spreading Jew-hatred rather than combating it. . Jewish American Heritage Month is no panacea. Nevertheless, it is an excellent first step for institutions that seem to have forgotten the Jewish experience. At a time when antisemitism is rising, a simple step that any institution can take is to celebrate Jewish American heritage, just as we do with the other heritages that make our nation strong. . In the meantime, may you have a happy Jewish American Heritage Month. And a joyous Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month as well.
Writing in The Journalist’s Resource, Jordan Fenster included LDB’s ‘Fact Sheet on the Elements of Anti-Semitic Discourse‘ for his May 26, 2022 article: ‘8 tips to help journalists cover anti-Semitism — and avoid inadvertently perpetuating anti-Semitic stereotypes.’ . . The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has a fact sheet on what the organization says are “some of the most common motifs in antisemitic discourse,” including the following: Horns: “During the Middle Ages, Jews were frequently described as children of the devil, often portrayed with horns and bulging eyes, and associated with Satanic attributes, such as arrogance and devious logic,” the center writes. “In the contemporary world, these images are reflected in depictions of Jews, individually or collectively.” . Deicide: Though the Catholic church has repudiated this idea, in the past, “Christians have condemned Jews for slaying the Christian messiah and have held Jews collectively responsible for this action,” the Brandeis Center writes. In the modern era, this has translated into expressions of “supposed malevolence, power and treachery.” . Blood libel: “Since ancient times, Jews have been falsely accused of killing gentiles for ritual purposes,” according to the Brandeis center. “Today, echoes of this blood libel can be heard in allegations that Jews, especially in Israel, kill young gentile children for military or political purposes or in service of genocide.” . Disease carriers: “Jews have long been described, literally or metaphorically, as carriers of a physical defect, deformity or disease, often associated with ugliness, weakness, dirt and excrement,” the center writes. “Contemporary anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli cartoons tend to emphasize physical traits associated with physical ugliness, such as the hooked nose and shallow forehead.” . Money: According to the Brandeis Center, “Since medieval times, Jewry has frequently been depicted as a wealthy, powerful, menacing and controlling collectivity, demanding the sacrifice of others to their own greed.” . Global conspiracy: “In its standard modern formulation, the Jews or Zionists form a powerful, secret, global cabal that manipulates governmental institutions, banks, the media, and other institutions for malevolent purposes, undermining decent values,” the center writes. “The myth of global Jewish conspiracy has echoes in contemporary opinions about the putative over-representation of Jewish people in various business sectors. This can be seen, for example, in representations of Jewish control over government, the media, academia, and financial institutions, especially when phrased in terms of a ‘Jewish lobby.’” . Beastilization: “Since ancient times, Jews have been compared in derogatory terms to barnyard and wild animals,” the fact sheet states. “In contemporary texts and cartoons, Jews and Israelis are often portrayed as a variety of barnyard and zoological animals and insects.”
Brandeis Brief: June 2022 This month, the Brandeis Center doubled down on its efforts to preserve free speech, while reminding universities they should use their own voices to condemn anti-Semitism with the same vigor and clarity they use to denounce hate speech against other minority groups. LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus authored a high-profile Washington Post op-ed exposing Georgetown University’s inconsistency in condemning the speech of speakers with which it disagrees but remaining silent in the face of anti-Semitic hate speech. LBD partnered with the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation on a legal brief for the Supreme Court’s high-profile Harvard case. Kenneth L. Marcus followed up the brief with an op-ed for the New York Sun. Marcus addressed ‘Anti-Semitism in Higher Education’ at the Academic Engagement Network’s annual conference. He opened his speech with crucial thought leadership about the anti-Semitic conspiratorial worldview connecting the dots between the Buffalo Massacre’s white supremacist killer, the NYC subway shooter’s black supremacist attacker, and Colleyville’s Islamist terrorist. Jewish Journal published Marcus’s op-ed on this topic the next day. LDB President Alyza Lewin headlined a Maryland synagogue congregation’s law day lecture, with a speech titled ‘Is Today’s Campus Climate Safe for Jews?’ The Jewish Journal highlighted a brief jointly filed by LDB and Hadassah urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a Texas law prohibiting anti-Israel boycotts. Marcus penned an op-ed on the topic for the Washington Times. LDB’s work addressing the rising problem of workplace antisemitism was the foundation for an exposé by the Society for Human Resource Management. Kenneth L. Marcus was featured on a News 12 Network segment investigating campus anti-Semitism and questioning whether schools are reporting incidents accurately. LDB joined Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, the Combat Antisemitism Movement, Conference of Presidents, Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History, American Jewish Committee, and Hadassah in a ceremony commemorating Jewish American Heritage Month. The New York Sun interviewed Marcus for a story about the federal scrutiny of anti-Semitism at NYU. Read about these and other developments at the Center in this month’s Brief. As always, we thank you for your tax-deductible donations and acknowledge that without you our work could not be done. LDB Urges Georgetown to ‘Listen, Learn, and Lead’ Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus followed up LDB’s Georgetown letter with a high-profile Washington Post op-ed calling upon the university to “Listen, learn, and lead.” Listen to Jewish students who describe the harm they face when Georgetown Law Center brings anti-Semitic speakers to campus. Learn about the forms that anti-Semitism takes on college campuses today, including left-wing, right-wing, and anti-Zionist anti-Semitism. Lead by speaking out, using the university’s own freedom of speech to condemn anti-Semitism promptly, firmly, and specifically, as well as by adopting policies that reflect current law, including the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. Marcus reminded the university that “it has its free speech rights – and those rights encompass the freedom to condemn racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination in all its forms. And Georgetown must do just that.” LDB turned Marcus’s words into a social media campaign, earning praise from Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid. LDB Briefs Supreme Court on Discrimination against Jewish and Asian American Applicants LDB teamed up with the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) on a U.S. Supreme Court brief in support of Asian American students in the Harvard affirmative action case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Together, we showed the Court that an admissions program developed by Harvard a century ago to limit the enrollment of Jewish students is now being used to limit the enrollment of Asian American students. Kenneth L. Marcus followed up the brief with an op-ed on the topic for the New York Sun. Kenneth L. Marcus Addresses ‘Anti-Semitism in Higher Education’ at AEN National Conference Kenneth L. Marcus presented at the Academic Engagement Network National Conference May 18 on “Anti-Semitism in Higher Education: Educational and Legal Approaches.” Along with his participation on a Federalist Society panel, ‘Selective Enforcement of Civil Rights Law by the Administrative Agencies,’ the events marked his return to in-person speaking since the start of the pandemic. Marcus began his AEN speech with remarks about the common factor uniting recent terror attacks in Buffalo, a New York City subway and Colleyville, Texas. The perpetrators of all three attacks were driven by a Jewish conspiracy theory worldview – even when the primary targets were not Jewish, as in Buffalo and New York. And in each case the anti-Semitism involved was downplayed – even when the targets were Jews attacked during synagogue prayer, as in Colleyville. He expanded upon this idea the following day in a Jewish Journal op-ed: “Three different races and three different mindsets….Yet their ideas were unified and made murderous by the same central principle: the age-old conspiratorial fantasy that Jews are an all-powerful cabal who are responsible for all the world’s evils…. In all three cases, the antisemitic element has been ignored, downplayed or misunderstood. And yet the failure to grasp this problem has endangered members of all communities.” Click the image to view Kenneth L. Marcus’s full AEN speech on ‘Anti-Semitism in Higher Education.’ LDB President Alyza Lewin Headlines Synagogue Law Day Lecture Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin was the featured speaker at the Law Day Lecture for the Ohr Kodesh Congregation, a synagogue in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The event marked Lewin’s return to in-person speaking engagements since the start of the pandemic. A leading voice in the fight against anti-Semitism on college campuses, Lewin addressed the problems being faced by Jewish students, faculty, and staff today and how to use the law to protect members of the Jewish community on campus and beyond. LDB recently added two other notable Lewin videos to LDB’s revamped YouTube channel – her remarks before a 2019 U.S. Justice Department panel on combating anti-Semitism and the Combat Anti-Semitism Movement’s new #MeetOurPartner video. Click the image to view Alyza Lewin explain that anti-Israel activity on campus is not debate and dialogue – but part of a concerted effort to shun Jewish students unless they shun the part of their Jewish identity that defines them as part of the Jewish people – with a connection to the land of Israel. LDB Brief in Texas Case Covered by Jewish Journal; Marcus Pens Op-ed for Washington Times The Brandeis Center’s jointly filed legal brief with Hadassah – urging a federal court of appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling invalidating a Texas law discouraging anti-Israel boycotts – was featured prominently in Jewish Journal’s coverage of the story. Kenneth L. Marcus told the Journal: “We are arguing that what the state of Texas has done is simply to condition government contracts on an agreement not to engage in discriminatory conduct. It is fairly standard to place conditions on government contracts – including discriminatory provisions – and what we’re saying is there should not be an Israel exception.” If the appeals court were to side with the lower court, it would “create a terrible precedent,” Marcus stated. “It would create an Israel exception to anti-discrimination law that could be used against Jewish Americans, not just in government contracting but on college campuses, in the workplace and elsewhere.” He added: “The reasoning that the Court uses could be used to deny the notion that BDS is anti-Semitic and that the so-called ‘new anti-Semitism’ is a form of bigotry.” Marcus followed up the article with an op-ed published in the Washington Times: “Texas is not legally required to subsidize any other form of discrimination. There is no justification for a rule that applies differently to antisemitism than to other forms of hate.” Landmark Workplace Anti-Semitism Article by SHRM Features Kenneth L. Marcus as Linchpin LDB’s work has traditionally focused on college campuses, but we are increasingly seeing anti-Semitism seep into the corporate world. We addressed workplace anti-Semitism in our Stanford case and an important webinar featuring EEOC Commissioners Andrea Lucas and Keith Sonderling. Our work has caught the attention of important figures in the human resources community, including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion editor Matt Gonzales of the Society for Human Resource Management. In a new article, Gonzales describes the growing problem of corporate anti-Semitism, and quotes LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. News 12 Network Investigates Under-reporting of Campus Anti-Semitic Incidents; Interviews Marcus New York City regional cable network News 12 completed a months-long investigation into whether U.S. universities are intentionally underreporting campus anti-Semitic incidents. The story includes an interview with Marcus – and statistics from LDB’s 2021 ‘Anti-Semitism @ College’ poll – the first to survey openly Jewish college students. Click image to view News 12 Network segment: ‘Watchdogs: Jewish students often target of hate, bias on U.S. college campuses.’ LDB Co-Sponsors First Nebraska Event The Brandeis Center co-sponsored an event with Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts along with the Combat Antisemitism Movement, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History, the American Jewish Committee and Hadassah. Gov. Ricketts inaugurated May as Jewish American Heritage Month – a first for any U.S. State. He also officially adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, making it the 26th state to do so. Nebraska’s endorsement means the majority of US states have now adopted the IHRA Definition. Marcus Urges Continued Federal Monitoring of Anti-Semitism at NYU Kenneth L. Marcus was interviewed for a New York Sun article examining the Title VI monitoring of NYU after years of ignored anti-Semitic incidents. The Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is set to end their monitoring of NYU on May 31, and Marcus argued this would be a poor decision: “The Biden administration can’t close its eyes to what is happening at NYU.” Marcus identified recent emails from NYU’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter and other student groups as “massively anti-Semitic” and part of a larger pattern of administrative malpractice whereby NYU “has not been effective in how it has addressed 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 You 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
Published May 24, 2022 by Ron Kampeas for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency . (JTA) — Among the many Jews on Russia’s latest list of Americans banned entry are three Chabad rabbis, in possible retaliation for Chabad’s decades-long effort to recover texts and artifacts that the Soviets took from the movement. . The list of 963 Americans posted Saturday, first reported by Axios, includes three leaders of Chabad’s umbrella body, Agudas Chassidei Chabad. They are . Rabbi Avraham Shemtov, the chairman of the executive of the umbrella body, a founder of the Washington office of the movement; Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, the umbrella group’s secretary, who heads the educational and social arms of Chabad-Lubavitch; and Rabbi Shlomo Cunin, a West Coast leader of the movement who is prominent in the branch of the movement seeking the return of the texts. . Chabad Online, a news site that covers the movement, said the men were likely included on the list because of Chabad’s continued advocacy for Russia to release the texts. . A lawyer for Chabad told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency last week that Russia’s war against Ukraine has invigorated the efforts to recoup the collection of sacred texts, known as the Schneerson library and archive. That’s because the United States’ effort to seize Russian assets is seen as strengthening Chabad’s own bid to seize Russian wealth to pay more than $165 million in court-ordered fines that the country owes for not returning the texts. . Russia released the list explicitly to retaliate against expanded U.S. sanctions against Russia for its unprompted war against Ukraine. It’s not always clear what qualifies an American for entry on the list; some entries offer perfunctory explanations — the three rabbis have their Chabad titles listed — and others that simply say “U.S. citizen.” Some people banned entry into the United States, such as former Sen. John McCain, are dead, and even listed as such. . The list also includes Nathan and Alyza Lewin, a father-daughter Supreme Court lawyer team who have represented Jewish groups on a number of religious liberty issues. Nathan Lewin has also represented Chabad in the Russia case, while Alyza Lewin is president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. . Also on the list are Tim Naftali, a noted presidential historian who has analyzed Russia-U.S. tensions; Jewish Congress members, including Democrats Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Jerry Nadler of New York, Alan Lowenthal of California, Andy Levin of Michigan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Republicans Lee Zeldin of New York and David Kustoff of Tennessee; and Ellen Weintraub, a federal election commissioner. . Jewish actor Rob Reiner is listed, not for directing “Spinal Tap” and other comedic classics but for founding “Investigate Russia,” a now-dormant website that tracked the investigation into Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Among the journalists listed is Susan Glasser, the foreign affairs expert who recently coauthored with her husband Peter Baker “Kremlin Rising: Putin’s Russia and the Counter-Revolution.” . Then there are the mysteries, the folks with obvious Jewish names listed only as U.S. citizens, among them Moshe Cohen and Avrohom Yitzhak Weisfish. . Many of those listed have mocked their entries, noting that they have no intention of entering Russia and no assets Russia can sanction. Chabad Online led its article on the listing with the Russian word for “Goodbye” — “Dasvidaniya!” . Chabad represents a prominent thread of Jewish life in Russia. The war has put its local leaders in a difficult position, as they seek to continue to serve the hundreds of thousands of Jews who live there while also remaining part of an international movement with emotional ties to Ukraine. Chabad of Russia is associated with a Jewish museum where some of the Schneerson library is currently housed.
Corporate America has seen a rise in discrimination and bias against Jewish workers. By Matt Gonzales, SHRM: Society for Human Resource Management, May 14, 2022 . She didn’t understand why he was staring at her. . Marissa, a 27-year-old Web developer, joined a group of co-workers for lunch in their company’s breakroom in Winter Park, Fla., in February 2020. She viewed the break as much-needed relief from a stressful morning working on a new website.] . Good vibes filled the room as everybody enjoyed one another’s company. But the young tech professional, who is Jewish, noticed a male colleague staring and smirking at her from across the table. Even when she looked away, he maintained his gaze. . Annoyed, Marissa jokingly asked him if there was food on her face. . “He responded with a comment about my physical appearance and the way Jewish people in general look,” she recalls. “I remember just sitting there, stunned. I couldn’t believe it.” . It wasn’t the first time Marissa had experienced antisemitism. Growing up, she had endured harsh comments about her Jewish heritage from friends and even adults. But this was the first time it had happened in a professional setting. And the worst part, she says, was that no one else seemed to care. A couple of her co-workers even laughed. . Marissa didn’t report the incident to human resources because the person who made the remark was well-liked within the company, she says. And she was embarrassed by the situation. . “It’s one of those things that you get over, but you never forget,” Marissa says. “People think they’re being funny when making offensive comments, but they’re still hurtful. I don’t think they fully realize what those comments can do to someone.” . Racism and discrimination are rife in U.S. workplaces. The advent of the Black Lives Matter movement, the increase in anti-Asian-American violence and other recent racial atrocities have inspired companies to speak out against bigotry and strengthen their diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) programs. . But bias aimed at Jewish employees often goes unnoticed, despite a recent rise in antisemitism. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) data shows that business establishments were the fourth most common site of antisemitic incidents in 2020, with the incidents ranging from verbal abuse to physical intimidation. . More than half of Jewish workers reported dealing with workplace discrimination in their careers, according to a 2022 report by Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program. Respondents said they had experienced harmful comments, stereotyping and social exclusion. . The COVID-19 pandemic hasn’t helped. Vlad Khaykin, national director of antisemitism programs at the ADL, says hate acts tend to increase during times of collective anxiety and uncertainty. Malicious words and actions can be spurred by pandemics, civil unrest, political instability or economic downturns. . “Human beings seek to identify the source of the threat, the source of suffering or anxiety, and antisemitism functions as a conspiracy theory which provides simplistic answers to what are complex, often systemic, problems in the form of a Jewish scapegoat,” Khaykin says. . Social media doesn’t help either. . The Center for Countering Digital Hate, a research organization, found 714 posts containing anti-Jewish sentiments on social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter between May and June 2021. Collectively, these posts had been viewed at least 7.3 million times. . Some individuals have conjured conspiracy theories about Jewish people, such as the false claim that Jews created the coronavirus with the sinister purpose of then being able to profit from developing an antidote. . In December 2021, for example, dozens of flyers containing this conspiracy theory were scattered throughout California and North Carolina, according to a Newsweek report. Both Jewish and non-Jewish residents woke to discover the messages in their yards, placed in plastic bags weighed down with pebbles. As of January 2022, police were still investigating the incident. . Antisemitism Goes Mainstream . High-profile incidents of antisemitism have dominated news headlines in recent months. . In 2021, Google fired a prominent executive after he posted a 10,000-word manifesto admitting to past antisemitic behavior. The company also reassigned its global lead for diversity strategy and research after discovering his now-deleted 2007 blog post filled with anti-Jewish messages. . That same year, comedian Nick Cannon promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories on his podcast. His employer, ViacomCBS, immediately fired Cannon from the improv TV show “Wild ‘N Out” and condemned his remarks. He later apologized. . And Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of the hit TV show “The View,” caused a stir in February when she incorrectly stated to millions of viewers that the Holocaust “isn’t about race.” Although she apologized, the show’s broadcast company, ABC, suspended her for two weeks. . “Recent remarks by public figures are a reminder that antisemitism is far more widespread than we would like to believe,” says Andrea Lucas, a commissioner at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “These types of remarks can lead to the misguided notion that such antisemitic comments are acceptable. Antisemitism in any form is unacceptable and should be condemned.” . Expressions of Antisemitism . The antisemitism found in Hollywood and social media reflects that of corporate America, says Jonathan Segal, an employment law attorney in Philadelphia who has witnessed the stereotyping of Jewish lawyers as shrewd, cunning or somehow psychologically stronger than others who practice law. . Segal, who is Jewish, has been told that he doesn’t “seem Jewish” and that to negotiate a lower price he should “Jew down the other side.” . “I’ve received this phone call: ‘I’m looking for a good Jewish lawyer, if you know what I mean,’ ” Segal recalls. “They think it’s a compliment. It’s the implication that you’re somehow stronger than the average lawyer. It’s like comments that Jews make the best accountants. It’s false praise.” . Often the antisemitism is more explicit. A software sales executive who requested anonymity once worked for a company in southern California. Not many on the management team knew he was Jewish, though his direct manager knew. . During a meeting, the team was discussing a conference that was being held during Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Judaism. A manager suggested that the sales executive attend. He said he couldn’t attend due to a scheduling conflict. . His boss implored him to work out the conflict and attend because important clients would be there. . “I said that the conference fell on a Jewish holiday, and he replied, ‘Right, I forgot you were Jewish. Well, I think God will forgive you for going, but I’m not sure I’ll forgive you for not going,’ ” he says. “Fortunately, another manager later agreed to go in my place, but that ruined my relationship with my boss, and I soon found another job.” . History of Antisemitism at Work . Workplace antisemitism isn’t a new development. . In the 1940s, during the height of World War II, thousands of Jews who survived the Holocaust came to the U.S. for freedom and opportunity. But many of these individuals endured implicit hate and discrimination because of their Jewish heritage. . For example, a study published in 1956 examined workplace discrimination among Jews. Researchers found that industries such as commercial banking, automobile manufacturing, shipping and transportation, agriculture, and mining would not hire Jewish workers. . Around this time, some help-wanted newspaper ads in the U.S. requested candidates who were “gentile” or “gentile-preferred.” Some Jewish lawyers in the mid-20th century started their own businesses because many law firms actively excluded them from employment. . In some fields, such as medicine, Jewish practitioners were also limited by anti-Jewish graduate school admissions restrictions. Aspiring Jewish doctors often had to enter other fields or change their names to avoid this discrimination. . Even Ivy League institutions established quotas limiting the number of Jewish students they would accept. . “Within many workplaces, there was an understanding that one should not act ‘too Jewish,'” said Kenneth L. Marcus, the founder and leader of the Louis D. Brandeis Center, an institution dedicated to advancing the civil and human rights of Jewish people. “This led many Jews to ‘cover’ or mute their ethnic characteristics to avoid sticking out.” . Segal has encountered Jewish clients who refuse to discuss their religion in the workplace and other public forums due to fear of criticism. This has caused many Jews to downplay their heritage rather than vocalize their pride. . “There’s a trend for Jewish workers to stay below the radar, even to this day,” Segal says. . Segal experienced antisemitism at a young age. As a college student in the 1980s, he worked at a candy store in a local mall. He loved the job, and he enjoyed working with his colleagues. But they often used Jewish tropes in his presence. . “They made jokes about Jewish money and some other ugly comments about Jews,” Segal recalls. “I felt conflicted because I liked them, but I hated what they said.” . Segal eventually decided to advertise his Jewish heritage. He asked his parents for a Jewish star to wear to work. If they were going to continue to make those comments, he wanted them to know that a Jew was in their presence. . Upon seeing the star, his co-workers stopped making the comments. . “I still believe the comments were born of ignorance rather than hate per se,” Segal says. “That’s why I think education is so important.” . Cases of ‘Zoombombing’ . Antisemitism has entered the modern age, with haters using updated technology to offend. . In 2020, dozens of cases of “Zoombombing” occurred—114 of which targeted religious, educational or cultural webinars conducted by Jewish institutions, according to ADL data. . Congregation Tifereth Israel in Columbus, Ohio, was conducting Shabbat morning services on Zoom in April 2020 when the session was unexpectedly interrupted by loud music, offensive images and antisemitic content. As many as 100 worshippers witnessed this “Zoombomb.” . These interruptions continued to occur during the synagogue’s virtual services about two to three times per month throughout the year. . “In the moment, it was frustrating and disorienting,” says Alex Braver, associate rabbi at Tifereth Israel. “It’s hard to be able to really focus on being a spiritual leader or teaching a class while also trying to make sure offensive content and disruptive people are kept out.” . Eventually, the synagogue implemented additional security measures to protect its services from such intrusions. But Braver doesn’t expect antisemitic incidents to completely go away, given the rise in hate incidents against Jews in recent years. . “We can only do our best to continue to stand for what we believe in, to be welcoming and kind, and to fight for a better world for everyone,” he says. . Antisemitism, like all kinds of prejudice, can erode a healthy work culture because it normalizes biased attitudes and reduces the chances of creating a truly diverse and inclusive environment. Discrimination in the workplace can also cause psychological harm among victims. . Victims of antisemitism often isolate themselves as a coping mechanism, according to a 2021 report published in the International Review of Victimology. They might remove themselves from social circles, avoid company gatherings or change jobs. . Those who don’t make changes to their social life may limit their self-expression when in public, the report found. They might be less likely to speak about their Jewish heritage to their friends or colleagues to avoid potential ridicule. . A 2017 report by the Royal College of Psychologists found that antisemitism can create short-term effects for its targets, such as shock and anger, as well as long-term consequences on a person’s self-esteem and psyche. . “[Antisemitism in workplaces] can lead to alienation, demoralization, loss of jobs and, in the worst cases, it will lead to a culture of hate that may give rise to physical violence, inside or outside of work,” Lucas says. . Carefully Audit DE&I Programs . The struggles of Black, Asian-American and LGBTQ individuals have understandably dominated discussions within many DE&I programs, given the rise of discrimination and violence against these groups in recent years. . However, the experiences of other underrepresented groups, including Jewish and Muslim workers, should not be ignored, says Neal Goodman, president of Global Dynamics Inc., a workplace consulting firm in Aventura, Fla. All forms of bigotry, prejudice and bias should be addressed, Goodman says. . “Organizations should start with a discussion of the many dimensions of diversity, including religion, race and gender,” he explains. “A discussion of bias, bigotry and prejudice is critical. Within that context, everyone in the room should be able to share their own story of experiencing bias to raise awareness [of these issues].” . Simply adding mentions of antisemitism to existing programs doesn’t always suffice, Goodman says. Some training modules are built on binary assumptions, dividing employees into two groups: white people and people of color. Marcus explains that many Jewish workers don’t fit comfortably into either category because people of all races can be Jewish. . He says some Jewish workers feel that certain DE&I training imposes upon them an identity that they haven’t chosen and that doesn’t reflect their lived experience. . “When Jews are viewed as privileged white oppressors, they may feel that their Jewish identities are erased and that their co-workers are viewing them through stereotypes about Jewish conspiracy and power,” Marcus says. “[Employers] must use DE&I as a tool, but they must also recognize that this tool has sometimes been compromised.” . DE&I programs can be productive if they are managed correctly, Lucas notes. Companies should carefully audit these initiatives and provide implementation training to ensure they do not contribute to antisemitism—including through assumptions or stereotypes of power, privilege, racial identity or conclusions based on racial or ethnic disparities. . “Inclusion needs to be truly inclusive,” Lucas says. “Religious discrimination, in any form, is always unacceptable.” . Khaykin believes businesses play an important role in stopping the spread of antisemitism and protecting the welfare of Jewish employees. He says companies should consider: Establishing, supporting and working in partnership with Jewish employee resource groups that can help to inform actions and policies to create more safe and equitable work environments for Jewish people. Creating and identifying opportunities for education about Jewish people, culture, history and religion, as well as antisemitism. Reviewing policies and ensuring that they do not marginalize Jewish people. This includes matters such as dress codes and out-of-office policies. Ensuring clear HR policies, mechanisms and communications around how to report incidents or other issues and seek a redress of grievances. Reviewing company language, both internal and external, to ensure communications are equitable and inclusive. . Business leaders should speak up unequivocally in support of Jewish employees and against antisemitism, Lucas says. This might include drafting clear guidance about inappropriate statements and postings online—a go-to platform for spreading antisemitic messages. . HR professionals are often on the front line of protecting an employer’s brand. Employment attorneys say companies can fire an employee for engaging in hate speech or making disparaging comments about protected categories of race, religion and gender. . It is incumbent upon an organization’s decision-makers to immediately address antisemitic comments made by an employee, Marcus says. Failing to act on the situation can jeopardize a company’s credibility. . “When these practices are tolerated,” Marcus explains, “they send a message that is antithetical to the goals of diversity, equal opportunity and inclusion.”