As the Harvard case demonstrates, elite universities have taken Supreme Court decisions as license to conduct racially preferential admissions decisions. . OPINION by Kenneth L. Marcus in the New York Sun, May 13, 2022 . Buried in the leaked Supreme Court draft abortion opinion, Justice Samuel Alito discusses “workability.” He explains the court should consider reversing even longstanding precedents that are unworkable, i.e., that fail to set a standard “which can be understood and applied in a consistent and predictable manner.” . This is significant for what it signals about other cases as well. Next term, the court will hear challenges to admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Nothing is more unworkable than the Supreme Court’s affirmative action jurisprudence. . As the Education Department’s top civil rights enforcer during two presidential administrations, I participated in a system of jarring changes as successive administrations lurched repeatedly in conflicting efforts to administer the Supreme Court’s affirmative action precedents, such as Grutter v. Bollinger. . It is one thing to see shifts in presidential policy priorities, it is quite another for federal agencies to interpret the same cases differently. This creates regulatory “whiplash,” undermining universities’ ability to adopt long-term plans, as former civil rights officials (myself included) recently explained to the court. . As the Harvard case demonstrates, elite universities have taken Supreme Court decisions as a license to conduct racially preferential admissions decisions — an approach three-quarters of Americans consider wrong, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey. . While current law permits some consideration of race in admissions, it also contains important limitations that some colleges ignore, minimize, or sidestep. Asian groups have shown that this leads to blatant discrimination. Others argue this harms African American and Hispanic students, who do not always benefit from the well-intentioned plans of white administrators. . Educators are not entirely to blame. Higher education is highly regulated. Administrators respond to directives from Washington. Given the Supreme Court’s current doctrinal backdrop, however, those dictates have been erratic, contradictory, and unpredictable. . During the George W. Bush administration, our office emphasized the limitations the Supreme Court placed on racially preferential university policies. These included limitations on the purposes for which race-conscious actions may be taken and the extent college policies must be tailored to those ends. . The Obama administration, however, interpreted the same cases differently, urging educators to use racially preferential policies more vigorously in admissions, scholarships, and mentoring. During my second tenure as civil rights chief, the Trump administration returned to Mr. Bush’s emphasis on race-neutral alternatives. Last year, the federal government flipped back to Mr. Obama’s approach. . Not only colleges but also some public high schools are now basing admissions decisions on racial politics. For example, the Fairfax County Public School Board recently overhauled admissions at the elite Thomas Jefferson High School to achieve a different racial balance. . The student body was approximately 80 percent minority, but the minority students were mostly Asian. The overhaul was ruled unconstitutional, but the case is pending appellate review. . All of this suggests the Supreme Court’s affirmative action jurisprudence has been unworkable from a legal perspective; it does not mean, however, colleges are not reaping the benefits. . That is not to say they have achieved true racial integration or the educational benefits thought to flow from racial diversity, which they arguably have not. Nor is it to say they have provided net educational benefits to racial minority students, also disputed. . None of these goals, however, motivated the architects of the admissions systems at Harvard and other elite institutions. Rather, as the Louis D. Brandeis Center has explained to the court, the goal is to limit specific, disfavored minority groups. Specifically, Harvard’s system, designed to limit enrollment of Jewish students, is now used to exclude Asians. . A century ago, Harvard’s president, A. Lawrence Lowell, began the process by which merit was supplanted as the sole admissions criterion. His concern was that Harvard had too many undesirable Jewish students. . In 1926, Harvard began introducing admissions practices to reduce Jewish enrollment, including athletic considerations, geographic preferences, legacy advantages, and subjective character criteria. All of these pillars of “holistic review” were intended to limit the admission of Jews, stereotyped as unathletic Northeasterners lacking in character. . While Harvard’s current leadership may not be trying to limit Jews, they maintain a system designed with that intent. A century later, this system — now widespread throughout academia — has the continuing effect of limiting Asians, who are stereotyped in similarly offensive ways. . In other words, the problem with higher education’s admissions is the opposite of the problem with the Supreme Court’s cases. The court’s current jurisprudence may not be working, but the dominant collegiate admissions system is working all too well. . Worse, that system is working in ways civil rights laws were supposed to deter, i.e., by elevating racial prejudice over individual merit. Neither Congress nor the president, alone, can fix this. The Supreme Court got us into this mess; now it must get us out.
Opinion by Kenneth L. Marcus in The Washington Post, May 13, 2022 . One day before Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), the Georgetown University Law Center hosted a well-attended event featuring notorious antisemitic conspiracy theorist Mohammed El-Kurd. El-Kurd is infamous for promoting the modern-day “blood libel” against Jews. He cloaks his antisemitic rants as criticism of Israel, claiming Israeli Jews “harvest organs of the martyred” and “feed their warriors our own.” . In light of El-Kurd’s reputation, some have urged that he be banned, while others insist that he be given a platform. Both are wrong. . Censorship is bad policy. But any American university that gives such bigotry a platform is due for a reckoning. . On the same day as the Georgetown event, the Anti-Defamation League announced that antisemitic incidents had reached a frightening all-time high in the United States, with 2,717 incidents of assault, harassment and vandalism reported the prior year. Other groups recently reported similar findings in the United Kingdom, as well as in Canada, Australia, Germany and elsewhere. This is the backdrop against which the Georgetown University Law Center held its event. . El-Kurd claims Zionists have an “unquenchable thirst for Palestinian blood” and describes the Jewish state as “blood thirsty and violent.” Speaking at Arizona State University earlier in April, El-Kurd promoted the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews control the media and threatened to shoot his Israeli Jewish critics if they tried to heckle him. This is nothing if not blatant antisemitism and racism. When Jewish students expressed outrage over the El-Kurd event, the administration defended the event on free-speech grounds. “We allow a huge amount of latitude even where speech is deeply offensive to some members of the community, some or even many,” said Mitch Bailin, Georgetown Law’s dean of students. “Those are things that we think are important to educational values, to promoting free speech, to promoting a free discussion of ideas, even if those ideas are deeply, deeply offensive.” . The problem with this argument is not that free speech is bad but rather that it is not Georgetown’s policy. Only about three months ago, Georgetown constitutional scholar Ilya Shapiro challenged President Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. At that time, the law school’s administration applied a very different standard. Georgetown Law’s dean, William M. Treanor, castigated Shapiro’s comments as being “at odds with everything we stand for at Georgetown Law” and placed Shapiro on administrative leave. . Nor was the Shapiro incident anomalous. Last year, when two Georgetown Law instructors described the performance of the school’s African American students in ways that the administration found offensive, Georgetown fired one and placed the other, who soon resigned, on administrative leave, instituted nondiscrimination training for other faculty and announced the enhancement of the school’s bias reporting process. . By canceling certain academics, Georgetown has placed itself in a double bind. Either it treats all controversial speech harshly, even when aligned with progressive politics, or it maintains free speech for all. If Georgetown makes an exception for some, it reveals that its harshness toward others has more to do with their politics than with Georgetown’s supposed commitment to inclusivity, civility and respect. . To escape this double bind, Georgetown must listen, learn and lead. As a world-famous university, Georgetown cannot tolerate the ignorance its law school has put on display. It is incumbent upon the university to look deeply into how its law school has lost its moral compass. It should educate itself and the community about the world’s oldest form of hatred and the one that has been given the keys to the law school. And it should examine how the law school has become susceptible to this pathology. . This work could also be aided by the establishment of a task force, ideally with participation from the university’s governance board. Its task should include a full review of not only the university’s free-speech policies, especially with respect to Shapiro, but also its approach to antisemitism and Jewish student life. It should consider the extent to which the university complies with the Education Department’s policy guidance, which incorporates the executive order on combating antisemitism. . Armed with this knowledge, Georgetown’s leadership must lead. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has long admonished that “university leadership should set a moral example by denouncing anti-Semitic and other hate speech, while safeguarding all rights protected under the First Amendment and under basic principles of academic freedom.” Georgetown’s own speech policy recognizes that “more [discourse] is better” and maintains that “the remedy for silly or extreme or offensive ideas is not less free speech but more.” The university has its own free-speech rights — and those rights encompass the freedom to condemn racism, antisemitism and discrimination in all its forms. And Georgetown must do just that. . However, as Treanor acknowledged, in response to a previous incident, “words alone will not … be enough to move [the Georgetown community] forward.” Serious leadership, action, education and introspection are required. This would be important for any college but especially for one whose mission is to graduate students “to be responsible and active participants in civic life and to live generously in service to others.” . In a free society, even vile speech would not be banned; but in a good society, it would not garner an audience, either. Whether we permit this nastiness or not, we should be ashamed when our communities encourage it, and we should think deeply about how we have arrived at a place where we are forced to choose between raw bigotry and blunt censorship.
Published May 8, 2022 by Zvika Klein for the Jerusalem Post . Last Thursday, on Israel’s Independence Day, during a celebratory event at the Nebraska Capitol Building, Gov. Pete Ricketts made the historic decision to inaugurate May as Jewish American Heritage Month in Nebraska, becoming the first US state to do so. . (From Left to Right): Elan Carr, Milton Kleinberg, Governor Pete Ricketts, Ellie Cohanim and Adam Beren(photo credit: COMBAT ANTISEMITISM MOVEMENT) He also proclaimed the official adoption by the State of Nebraska of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. In doing so, the number of US states that have adopted or endorsed the IHRA definition is now 26 (plus the District of Columbia), meaning that the majority of states now officially recognize it. . “We’ve seen a disturbing rise in antisemitism across the country,” Ricketts said. “Here in Nebraska, we’re not immune to it. Someone painted a swastika on a synagogue here in Lincoln. We see this rise in antisemitism and must be aggressive in combating it. We must let people know we will stand against hate.” . “When we see antisemitism, we have to take very strong steps immediately to combat it,” he said. “That’s why we want to make this proclamation to recognize the Jewish community’s contributions to Nebraska and the nation.” . Agriculture and Rural Development Minister Oded Forer sent a letter of appreciation to Ricketts for his adoption of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and the deep ties between Israel and Nebraska. . In the letter, which was read out at the event, Forer commended the “significant gesture to recognize the deep and substantial contribution Jewish Americans have made and continue to make to Nebraska in particular and to the United States as a whole.” . The event was co-sponsored by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), which is a leading proponent of the IHRA definition and has worked to have it adopted and endorsed in the US and around the world. . Other partners included the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Representatives from each of Nebraska’s eight synagogues and the Jewish Federation of Omaha were in attendance. . “With the State of Nebraska’s endorsement, the majority of US states have now adopted the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which is now a tipping point for its success, meaning that only a minority of states have yet to do so,” said Elan Carr, a CAM board member and former US special envoy for monitoring and combating antisemitism. . “While there remains resistance to the IHRA definition, it is a minority voice and is becoming increasingly drowned out by decision-makers and opinion-shapers across the US and the world who are placing their authority behind it and leaving less room for antisemites to espouse their hate and intolerance,” he said. . Nebraska Holocaust survivor and philanthropist Milton “Milt” Kleinberg said: “I’m Jewish and I have always loved the free state of Nebraska. I could have taken my business to Texas, but Nebraska is home, and our governor is a friend.” .. Other speakers included Israeli Consul General to the Midwest Yinam Cohen and Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnan. . Thirty-seven nations and almost 900 entities around the world have adopted the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism since 2016, including the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, Australia and France, CAM reported in March. . Jews are only 0.5% of the population in Nebraska, according to the 2020 American Jewish Year Book. Two weeks ago, Arizona voted to adopt the IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism. In addition, Ohio adopted the definition in an executive order three weeks ago.
Wednesday, June 1, at 12:00 p.m. EDT, Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin will present on ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) & Erasive Anti-Semitism’ as part of a StandWithUs Saidoff Legal Department series. The full Continuing Legal Education (CLE) series is titled ‘Diverse and Current Legal Issues Impacting the Jewish Community.’ Attendees for Ms. Lewin’s lecture are eligible to receive 1 hour of CA MCLE credit. . The lectures are virtual, and there is a suggested donation. Registration is open.
Washington, D.C. (May 6, 2022) – This week, the Brandeis Center teamed up with the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) on a 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 Harvard’s admissions program, which was largely developed to limit the enrollment of Jewish students a century ago, has the continuing effect of limiting Asian American students. . Our brief featured historical information concerning profound anti-Jewish attitudes at 1920s Harvard. As Jewish enrollment crossed the 20% threshold, Harvard birthed the practice of ‘holistic admissions.’ Avoiding an explicit quota, Harvard solicited subjective admissions criteria – so that only applicants who passed a “character and fitness” analysis were admitted. Jews were routinely deemed to lack the necessary qualities. This same process – which held Jewish admissions below 15% – is today in use limiting admissions of Asian American students. . Asian Americans score higher than applicants of other racial or ethnic groups on Harvard admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities. Yet the school consistently rejects these applicants based on subjective factors – and offensive racial stereotypes – about ‘leadership,’ likeability,’ and ‘self-confidence.’ . Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case – and a similar one that Students for Fair Admissions filed against the University of North Carolina – LDB has partnered with SVCAF, a nonprofit that promotes the integration of Chinese communities in Silicon Valley. LDB and SVCAF had partnered together during an earlier phase in this litigation, urging the Court to hear the case, which it has agreed to do. . The Supreme Court – and the public – must understand that discriminatory practices at elite colleges that were designed to keep Jews out are being used today by Harvard and UNC against Asian Americans. . Jonathan Vogel of Vogel LLC, the U.S. Education Department’s former Deputy General Counsel, drafted the brief on behalf of LDB and SVCAF.
On March 24, Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin presented a webinar titled “Responses and Solutions to Jew Hatred on Campus” hosted by the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation (CAEF). In her webinar, Lewin discussed the issues presented by modern-day anti-Semitism, then explained the Brandeis Center’s legal approaches to combat anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment on college campuses in the U.S. . According to Lewin, many people do not understand what anti-Semitism looks like today: “If anti-Semitism is society’s oldest hatred, why does it seem so difficult for society to recognize the Jew hatred that our students, our faculty, staff, employees are experiencing, particularly on these university campuses?” The anti-Semitism that most people recognize is anti-Semitism relating to the Holocaust, she pointed out. People understand that swastikas and Nazis are anti-Semitic. Additionally, if someone is targeted specifically because they look Jewish or practice Judaism, most people will recognize that as anti-Semitism. “But much beyond that, many people do not recognize today’s anti-Semitism,” she expressed. . The reason that anti-Semitism may be unrecognizable to many today is because it changes across generations. “It is difficult to recognize because it morphs,” Lewin stated. “It looks a little different in every generation. There is one constant, however, and that one constant is that no matter what the generation, no matter what the era, what anti-Semitism does is it takes whatever that society, whatever that generation, that period views as its worst misfortune as the evil that has to be confronted and it scapegoats the Jew. The Jew becomes the cause of that misfortune.” This process has always been used to ‘other’ the Jew, to push the Jew out, to deny Jews their place in society. In this generation, Lewin expressed, society’s worst offenses are racism, apartheid, and settler colonialism – all of which the Jewish people and Israel have been accused. Traditional anti-Semitism sought to target Jews as individuals, she noted, but the new anti-Semitism seeks to target Jews as a collective, taking aim at the only Jewish state and treating it as the worst offender of society’s evils. . The most common ways the new anti-Semitism manifests itself are through anti-Zionism and opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists claim that their rhetoric is not anti-Semitic, but as Lewin showed, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. This is because many Jews see Zionism as an integral part of their Jewish identity – as important to them as keeping the Sabbath and a kosher diet. Zionism is not, as many anti-Zionists claim, a political ideology or a synonym for racism. Rather, it is a sense of Jewish peoplehood that Jews across the world share. It is the connected history and shared homeland of the Jewish people. Connection with the land of Israel is part of Jewish identity for many Jews. Over half of the 613 commandments in the Torah refer to the land of Israel and can only be fulfilled in the land of Israel. The Jewish people have been historically pressured to shed their Zionist identity, to turn away from their sense of peoplehood. On this basis, anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism: “People have to understand that when Jews express this part of their Jewish identity, they can’t be excluded on that basis, they can’t be shunned on that basis.” . Anti-Zionism has been a persistent issue on campus, and one that has been difficult to tackle. Campus administrators wrongly see anti-Semitism as a political debate between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups, believing they are prohibited from getting involved because of free speech. This non-involvement from campus administrators has blinded them to the anti-Semitism that Jewish students, faculty, and staff face. As Lewin states: “Any student who expresses support for the existence of the Jewish homeland, who believes that Israel has a right to exist as the Jewish homeland, that Jews have the right to exercise the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. . . . As long as they say they support Israel, the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, they are marginalized, they are excluded, they are shunned. We have seen students who have been pushed out of their positions on student government, in clubs – clubs that they created….People have turned on them and cut them off. Why? Because it has become clear that they are Zionists. And as soon as one accepts that label, that they are a Zionist, that they believe and take pride in the Jews’ shared ancestry and ethnicity, they take pride in their belonging to the Jewish people, they are treated as pariahs.” That is not an issue of legitimate debate, but instead an issue of discrimination and harassment. . Jewish students are not the only ones to deal with anti-Semitism on campus. In one instance, the Brandeis Center filed a Title VII complaint against Stanford University. A campus Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) group placed Jewish employees in a white affinity group during trainings and told them to keep their whiteness in check, while promoting anti-Semitic stereotypes. These programs have inadvertently promoted anti-Semitism by ignoring Jewish history, Jewish heritage and the complexity of Jewish identity and instead portraying Jews as white supremacists and colonial settlers. Like anti-Semitism emanating from students, this anti-Semitism has also gone unchecked by university administrators. . After outlining some of the issues raised by today’s anti-Semitism, Lewin explained the ways that the Brandeis Center has been fighting back, including educating universities on their legal obligation to protect Jewish students, and utilizing the law to motivate university administrations to act when anti-Semitism occurs on campus. In some cases, such as with the University of Illinois, the Brandeis Center worked directly with the school to issue a joint statement addressing anti-Semitism on campus and ways in which it will be addressed in the future. LDB also uses its JIGSAW Initiative (Justice Initiative Guiding Student Activists Worldwide) to teach law students best practices for addressing campus anti-Semitism. This includes teaching JIGSAW fellows relevant areas of the law and how to support undergraduate students in bringing complaints of anti-Semitism to administrators. . One of the most effective practices for the Brandeis Center is using Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to combat campus anti-Semitism. Title VI protects against discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in public and private institutions that receive federal funding. If an institution does not comply, it risks losing its federal funding. For nearly two decades, LDB has advanced the most significant legal protections for American Jews this century. The “Marcus Doctrine,” named for LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus, who served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights in two U.S. administrations, established that federal civil rights law protects Jews and members of other faiths when they are targeted due to their ancestry or ethnicity. The Brandeis Center has used this legal doctrine to protect the rights of Jewish students, faculty and staff at numerous institutions, including the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Southern California, Tufts University and Brooklyn College. Other organizations are now similarly utilizing the Marcus Doctrine. In 2019, President Trump signed an executive order on combatting anti-Semitism which adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition on anti-Semitism. As Lewin discussed LDB’s legal approaches, she declared, “We should be able to use [the Civil Rights] laws and make it clear that they apply to Jews in this situation.” . One of the most important things, according to Lewin, which can be done to combat anti-Semitism is to educate about Jewish history and culture. She mentioned that this promotes better understanding of Judaism and the Jewish people because: “there has to be an identity that we feel we have that’s worth fighting for.” One thing that Lewin stressed would be learned from studying Jewish history and culture is about the origins of social justice. “All of these notions of social justice: “These principles that we’re fighting for, you know where they originate? In our history, in our culture. In the Bible, in our philosophy. That’s where it starts.” . Lewin’s webinar emphasized the impact that the Brandeis Center has in the fight against anti-Semitism. It has pushed campus administrators to have a more critical view of the anti-Semitism that is occurring on campus, and it has empowered students to be proud of their Jewish identity. Lewin encouraged listeners to embrace Jewish identity and stand up for who they are: “The best answer to harassment and discrimination is self-confidence and pride.” . You can watch Lewin’s webinar here. The Brandeis Center is also excerpting the webinar into smaller TikTok posts here. . To contact the Brandeis Center regarding anti-Semitism on campus, email info@brandeiscenter.com.
May 5, 2022 – Notorious anti-Semite Mohammed El-Kurd is speaking at the University of California, Davis on Friday, May 6. . Mohammed El-Kurd is an activist notorious for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including modern day blood libels, against Jews. . The Brandeis Center demanded UC, Davis Chancellor May to promptly and forcefully condemn any anti-Semitic rhetoric that threatens to poison the atmosphere against Jewish students. . Read our full letter here.
Published May 2, 2022 by Aaron Bandler at Jewish Journal . Law professors and Jewish groups have each filed separate briefs urging the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn a January ruling finding Texas’ anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) law unconstitutional. . The law, which bars the state government from entering contracts with those who boycott Israel, was declared a violation of a Palestinian contractor’s freedom of speech. Eighteen law professors––including former Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz and George Mason University Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich—filed a brief supporting the law on April 21. The brief argued that commercial activity is not protected under the First Amendment and that the law “only prohibits the government from contracting with a company that engages in particular boycotts, which themselves remain entirely legal.” The law also defines a “boycott” as a contractor refusing to conduct commercial activity with Israel or someone based in the Jewish state for the sole purpose of inflicting “economic harm” on Israel. . They also noted that under the logic of the ruling, other anti-discrimination laws would be overturned as well. “Many state and local laws prohibit the government from funding or doing business with persons and businesses that discriminate against LGBTQ Americans, regardless of the boycotter’s religious, moral, or ideological opposition to gay marriage or other actions of LGBTQ Americans,” the professors wrote in the brief. “California, for example, refuses to provide state funding or sponsorship of travel for state employees and contractors to states whose laws on ‘sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression’ do not meet with California’s approval.” “Arguments that anti-BDS laws violate the Constitution threaten to put Jews outside the protection of anti-discrimination principles,” Kontorovich said in a statement. . The Louis Brandeis Center for Human Rights and Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, also filed a similar brief on April 21. Kenneth Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center and former Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, 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.” . Marcus was optimistic that the appeals court would overturn the lower court’s ruling; however, if the appeals court were to side with the lower court, then it would “create a terrible precedent,” he argued. “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.” Marcus 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.”
Contact: Lynda Prior, lpryor@brandeiscenter.com . Washington, D.C. (March 28, 2022) – The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) is pleased to announce the appointment of Scott Piro as the organization’s first-ever director of communications. Mr. Piro, having decades of experience in public relations and corporate storytelling, will primarily work on external communications including LDB’s Brandeis Briefs, social media accounts and donor relations, and on the organization’s website redesign and launch. . “Momentum is with the Brandeis Center,” declared LDB Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Our latest legal complaints led to campus anti-Semitism investigations by the Dept. of Education and EEOC, and we began 2022 by filing suit against Unilever and its subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s to reverse its anti-Israel boycott. Our work directly and immediately improves the lives of many Jewish Americans – and more people need to know about it. With his depth of communications expertise and Jewish pride, Scott is uniquely qualified to reach the audiences that help fulfill our mission.” . “We are excited and grateful to have Scott join our team. His knowledge, creativity and writing skill will expand and improve the quantity and quality of our media output and reach,” stated LDB President Alyza Lewin. “With Scott leading our communications efforts, our legal team can be even more focused on providing crucial legal support to those who experience anti-Semitism. Scott will ensure those who need our services, as well as the general public, know and understand our work.” . Piro will also lead the Brandeis Center’s roster of undergraduate interns. And he’ll assist Rosen Communications, which LDB still retains for media relations. . Mr. Piro’s appointment continues the Brandeis Center’s ongoing expansion as the civil rights organization marks its 11th anniversary not only fighting anti-Semitism on university campuses – but also in the workplace and corporate boardroom. Chairman Marcus returned from government service in 2020, joining forces with LDB President Alyza Lewin, to develop the Louis D. Brandeis Center into a bigger and stronger organization. The same year, LDB announced the arrival of Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober and Executive Administrator Lynda Prior. In 2021 Vice Chair Rachel Lerman assumed, in addition to her board role, additional legal advocacy duties as Senior Counsel, international human rights lawyer Arthur Traldi joined as Senior Counsel, and Mitchell Webber and Joshua Swidler joined LDB’s Board. . “I’m overjoyed to join the Brandeis Center,” Mr. Piro proclaimed. “Among all the vital activity fighting anti-Semitism by committed organizations, the Brandeis Center stands out for its ‘boots on the ground’ level of positive impact on Jewish college students’ lives. I have been waiting my whole life to share in this kind of impact.” . LDB continues to recruit for additional positions to address increasing anti-Semitism on and off of university campuses. LDB’s recent survey illustrated the historic challenges faced by Jewish college students, demonstrating for example that two thirds of Jewish fraternity and sorority students feel unsafe on campus. In keeping with this expansion, LDB is currently seeking applicants for undergraduate internships, as well as law student clerkships and fellowships. . About Scott Piro: . A media and public relations professional since 1994, Scott Piro has strategized and implemented national and local campaigns for nonprofits, startups, corporations, publishers and entertainment organizations. . The Philadelphia native has extensive experience writing compelling marketing, press and internal materials for a wide variety of organizations – from media talking points and web copy to press kits and social media content. . Scott co-launched the pioneering nonprofit organization ORAM, protecting and empowering LGBTIQ asylum seekers and refugees, and he created the popular groups Tel Aviv Anglos and Queer Support for Israel on Facebook. He was lead author of the Jewish American group collaboration, the Focus Project’s weekly anti-Semitism talking points for the last four years, having also designed their content format. . Scott has completed 21 marathons and sang onstage at Carnegie Hall eight times. . About The Louis D. Brandeis Center: The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc., or LDB, is an independent, nonprofit organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. The Brandeis Center conducts research, education, and advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses. It is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.
LDB is proud to co-sponsor our first Nebraska event. . We will join Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts – together 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 – in commemorating Jewish American Heritage Month, celebrating Israel’s 74th anniversary and endorsing the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism. RSVP information is printed in the bottom of this image: .