Published by WFXT-TV (Boston 25) on 5/2/24; Story by Maria Papadopoulos AMHERST, Mass. — The University of Massachusetts-Amherst has failed to address a “hostile antisemitic environment” against Jewish students on its campus, according to a federal complaint filed this week by the Anti-Defamation League. The complaint, filed by the ADL and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law on Tuesday with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, comes amid ongoing protests over the Israel-Hamas war seen at colleges and universities nationwide and concerning reports of antisemitic activity on college campuses across America. The complaint alleges that UMass-Amherst has failed to address “severe discrimination and harassment of Jewish and Israeli students,” including a violent assault against a Jewish student. The complaint seeks remedies under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Even after a violent antisemitic assault on campus, UMass has done nothing to make Jewish students feel safe and, infuriatingly, this assault is the tip of the iceberg – part of a persistent pattern of enabling hate against Jews,” Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO and national director, said in a statement. “This is a textbook example of an administration that is deliberately indifferent and negligent – the U.S. Department of Education must intervene immediately.” UMass is among several schools where concerns have been raised about antisemitism on campus. In February, the co-chairperson of Harvard University’s talk force on antisemitism resigned amid concerns that the prestigious Ivy League school would not act on the group’s recommendations. That same month, Harvard condemned what it called a “flagrantly antisemitic cartoon” that an undergraduate group posted on social media. House Republicans this week launched an investigation into federal funding for universities amid the campus protests and reports of growing antisemitism on college and university campuses, The Associated Press reported. “We will not allow antisemitism to thrive on campus, and we will hold these universities accountable for their failure to protect Jewish students on campus,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a news conference on Tuesday. Dylan Jacobs, a senior at UMass-Amherst, was called an antisemitic slur and then punched and kicked repeatedly by another student in an attack corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses, according to the complaint. “A small Israeli flag was ripped from his hand, stabbed and thrown in a trash can. While UMass-Amherst was quick to condemn the attack, it did little beyond that,” the ADL said in a statement. “Instead, it spent nearly six months ignoring the incident, despite requests from the victim to address the matter.” Jacobs was subsequently given a no-contact order and “told he must stay away from members of Students for Justice in Palestine,” who could still approach Jacobs, the ADL said. “This could effectively create a situation in which Mr. Jacobs is in violation of the directive through no fault of his own. But, without explanation, the SJP members were not subjected to a no-contact order,” the ADL said. “UMass-Amherst failed to provide Mr. Jacobs with any information regarding the basis of said no-contact directive and effectively established a potentially dangerous dynamic.” University officials have yet to hold Jacobs’ attacker accountable, Kenneth Marcus, chairman of the Brandeis Center and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights for George W. Bush and Donald Trump, said in a statement. “A Jewish student was charged at and repeatedly and violently punched and kicked for holding an Israeli flag at a Hillel Bring Them Home event, and what did the university do? They issued a statement urging ‘peaceful advocacy’ and simultaneously condemned Islamophobia,” Marcus said. “Adding insult to injury, it took them five months to hold a hearing on the violent assault and they have yet to hold the attacker accountable.” “What kind of message does this send to the UMass community? It is no wonder anti-Semitic protestors continue to block entrances and exits to buildings, call for violence against Jews, harass and intimidate Jewish students, disrupt events and spew anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” Marcus said. “Following the law, holding perpetrators accountable and issuing consequences is not rocket science. It’s beyond shameful that we have to call in the Department of Education to get a school to address a violent anti-Semitic assault and ensure other students aren’t similarly attacked.” The complaint cites additional examples of antisemitic incidents including “genocidal chants, antisemitic slurs, and physical threats.” “There were statements from UMass-Amherst student groups praising Hamas’s terrorism as justified ‘resistance,’ and disruptive pro-Hamas protests that prevented people from physically entering or exiting buildings, working, or studying,” the ADL said. “There was also online harassment of Jewish students in a group chat, which included derogatory, vile, and antisemitic language. This rhetoric was so egregious that a perpetrator’s account was banned from a UMass public school page,” the ADL said. The complaint urges the Office for Civil Rights “to compel the university’s administration to implement a series of measures necessary to secure the safety of Jewish students at UMass, including issuing a public statement condemning antisemitic hostility and the BDS movement, urging the university to incorporate the IHRA working definition of antisemitism into its campus policies to better recognize the types of antisemitic discrimination confronting Jewish students, and providing mandatory antisemitism training to university administrators, faculty, students and staff.”
Brandeis Center Director of Corporate Initiatives and Senior Counsel, Hon. Rory Lancman, will present in this CLE Zoom event sponsored by the Queens County Bar Association and the Brandeis Bar Association. Register Now
Republican opposition to the IHRA codification on and off Capitol Hill has appeared to gain steam in the wake of the bill’s passage in the House Published 5/3/24 by Jewish Insider; Story by Marc Rod The fate of the House-passed Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA) in the Senate remains unclear after a bipartisan effort to unanimously fast-track passage of the bill encountered objections on both sides of the aisle. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters on Thursday, “There are objections on both sides, so we’re going to look for the best way to move forward.” He was unable to offer a timeline on when he would announce next steps. One senior GOP senator who serves on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) leadership team, speaking on condition of anonymity, told JI on Thursday afternoon that the AAA was “in a holding pattern” after it became clear midday that the bill would not pass by unanimous consent. The bill will likely have to be included in a broader package of legislation if it is to move forward through the Senate. Objections to the bill on the right have been growing on and off the Hill, with conservative influencers Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk on Thursday echoing Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Matt Gaetz’s (R-FL) accusations that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism would label the Bible as antisemitic, claiming that Christian scripture dictates that Jews are responsible for Jesus’s death. Ben Shapiro, the influential Orthodox Jewish conservative commentator, said on his podcast on Thursday that he also opposes the AAA, arguing that it improperly broadens what he described as an already unconstitutional civil rights law. He argued that some of the examples included in the IHRA definition, including the language around the death of Jesus, are “obviously are vaguely worded, to say the least, and almost certainly encroach on free speech concerns.” “I think it’s overbroad, and I think the definition should not be applied in American law in this way,” Shapiro continued. The bill codifies a 2019 executive order directing the Department of Education’s to treat antisemitic discrimination on campuses as a violation of the Civil Rights Act, and to evaluate antisemitism using the IHRA definition. Shapiro argued that further legislation beyond this isn’t needed. “We probably need to make a couple tweaks to it, [that] is where I’m at,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) told JI. “It sounds like there’s some issues back home with what they did with scripture, and we’re looking into that to see where it all shakes out, but it probably needs to be tweaked just a little bit.” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), an ordained Baptist minister and co-sponsor of the bill, rejected that narrative as “absurd.” “IHRA is just making it very clear what antisemitism is and gives some very clear examples of that,” Lankford continued. “It’s not something contrary to scripture, contrary to the First Amendment protections of free speech. You still have free speech, but it provides clarity.” Other Republicans opposing the bill, claiming it limits free speech, include Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ron Johnson (R-WI) and, reportedly, Mike Lee (R-UT). “An appropriate response by the Senate would be to condemn the murderous rampage of October 7th and condemn the voices on campuses across America who are shouting their support for the carnage committed by Hamas,” Paul said in a statement to JI. “But what would be inappropriate is for the Senate to rush, in reactionary fervor, to place new limits on speech in America.” At the same time, Paul said it is “intellectually and morally repugnant” for college students to express support for Hamas and that “civilized people across the political spectrum” have, and should, condemn the bill. Johnson told JI in a statement, “I believe in free speech, even speech I vehemently disagree with. This bill unconstitutionally limits free speech.” Kenneth Marcus, the founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law who implemented the executive order as the head of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights under the Trump administration, told JI that it hasn’t been unusual to see some initial conservative concerns during state-level legislative battles over IHRA. “Sometimes they are persuaded, and sometimes they’re outvoted, but more often than not, cooler heads will prevail,” Marcus said. He said he thinks some senators are just starting to give thought to the bill and that, given sufficient time, supporters will be able to bring them onboard. Marcus added that those claiming the bill would encroach on free speech “really have a misunderstanding of the way the statute would work. “The fact is that Jewish college students are being repeatedly and seriously silenced through intimidation tactics and efforts to exclude anyone for whom Zionism is a part of their identity,” he argued. “If anything, the Antisemitism Awareness Act is a powerful pro-free speech tool.” Addressing the claims around Christian scripture, Marcus said that he thinks “there are Senate Republicans who are serious enough that they’ll actually read the text closely and carefully and realize that they have been sold a misinterpretation. Nothing is being criminalized here, and there is no reason for them to be afraid.” Some members, he acknowledged, might follow their base’s concerns without examining the bill further, but other senators and their staff, Marcus said, will “have the seriousness [to] actually look at what the definition says and realize that this is a misrepresentation.” He said it’s too soon to say if the emerging opposition in the conservative influencer and thought-leader space will sway current supporters of the bill against it. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), another co-sponsor of the bill, said that he remains supportive of the AAA. “From everything I’ve seen, I support it,” Scott said. “Antisemitism is horrible, hatred is horrible. I was just at The George Washington University supporting the students there. They don’t feel safe anymore. So I’m going to support the bill.” “I’m in favor of what it’s trying to do,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said of the bill, adding that he planned to review legislative text “if we do indeed vote on it over here.” He said he was “for addressing antisemitism” but wanted to read the bill before commenting further. Hawley was a co-sponsor of the Senate’s version of AAA when it was introduced in the upper chamber last month. The bill has also faced predictable opposition among some Democrats, who share concerns about free speech. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) said that he worries “about creating a statutory thoughtcrime, even thoughts that I find personally offensive.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) didn’t speak to the particulars of the AAA but said following the effort to bring up the AAA, “I think there may be a different bill that comes to the floor.” Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) said he hasn’t yet reviewed the bill, but wants to ensure it protects free speech rights. “You’re talking about [the] First Amendment, so you always want to take that very seriously,” he said. “But we’re all incredibly concerned about increasing antisemitism.” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), a co-sponsor of the Senate version of the AAA, said that its supporters are “all for free speech.” “We want to make sure it does not infringe upon the rights of others. I think that’s the critical point,” Cardin continued. “We see that on campuses today. I encourage the debate on college campuses as long as it doesn’t interfere with a student’s right[s] on campus, it doesn’t intimidate other students, it doesn’t call upon violence — that’s fine.” Marcus suggested that opposition from prominent right-wing figures could ultimately help the bill among Democrats. “To the extent there are strongly conservative voices that misunderstand the legislation, it might, if anything, create space for members of the Democratic majority to support it,” Marcus said. “It’s not clear that it will be harder for the Democratic Senate majority to support a bill that’s now being opposed by some on the far right.” A Jewish Federations of North America spokesperson said the group is pushing for the Senate to consider the bill “regardless of how it gets there.” “America is watching in real time what is happening on college campuses across the country. Jewish students are being harassed, intimidated, and assaulted on property where they should feel safe and secure,” the spokesperson said. “The Antisemitism Awareness Act will make it clear that Jewish students must be protected under title VI, which would incorporate the IHRA definition of antisemitism.” Marcus also emphasized that “it’s extraordinary that we’ve come so close, so fast” to passing the bill. “I don’t think anyone could reasonably have supposed that there would be no battles ahead. It’s always a fight,” Marcus said. “Over the last few years, more than half of our states have embraced the IHRA definition, but it has seldom been easy. These sorts of debates and misunderstandings and confusions are simply part of the process, which in the end has worked out more frequently for the better than for the worse.”
Media Contact: Nicole Rosen, nicole@rosencomm.com, 202-309-5724 Complaint claims school failed to protect students, including after violent antisemitic assault May 2, 2024 – ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law today announced that they submitted a formal complaint against the University of Massachusetts Amherst with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) alleging that the university has failed to address the severe discrimination and harassment of Jewish and Israeli students, which fostered a hostile antisemitic environment. The complaint alleges that since the events on Oct. 7, Jewish students at UMass-Amherst have faced a litany of antisemitic incidents, including a violent assault. The complaint seeks remedies under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Even after a violent antisemitic assault on campus, UMass has done nothing to make Jewish students feel safe and, infuriatingly, this assault is the tip of the iceberg – part of a persistent pattern of enabling hate against Jews,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO and National Director. “This is a textbook example of an administration that is deliberately indifferent and negligent – the U.S. Department of Education must intervene immediately.” In an attack corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses, the Complainant, UMass-Amherst Senior Dylan Jacobs was called a “Zionist s***bag” and then punched and kicked repeatedly by another student. A small Israeli flag was ripped from his hand, stabbed and thrown in a trash can. While UMass-Amherst was quick to condemn the attack, it did little beyond that. Instead, it spent nearly six months ignoring the incident, despite requests from the victim to address the matter. Mr. Jacobs was also bizarrely subject to a no-contact directive without any basis provided, told he must stay away from members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), but the SJP members could still approach him. This could effectively create a situation in which Mr. Jacobs is in violation of the directive through no fault of his own. But, without explanation, the SJP members were not subjected to a no-contact order. UMass-Amherst failed to provide Mr. Jacobs with any information regarding the basis of said no-contact directive and effectively established a potentially dangerous dynamic. “A Jewish student was charged at and repeatedly and violently punched and kicked for holding an Israeli flag at a Hillel Bring Them Home event, and what did the university do? They issued a statement urging ‘peaceful advocacy’ and simultaneously condemned Islamophobia. Adding insult to injury, it took them five months to hold a hearing on the violent assault and they have yet to hold the attacker accountable. What kind of message does this send to the UMass community? It is no wonder anti-Semitic protestors continue to block entrances and exits to buildings, call for violence against Jews, harass and intimidate Jewish students, disrupt events and spew anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” stated Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman of the Brandeis Center and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights for George W. Bush and Donald Trump. “Following the law, holding perpetrators accountable and issuing consequences is not rocket science. It’s beyond shameful that we have to call in the Department of Education to get a school to address a violent anti-Semitic assault and ensure other students aren’t similarly attacked.” Additional specific examples of antisemitic incidents cited in the complaint include genocidal chants, antisemitic slurs, and physical threats. There were statements from UMass-Amherst student groups praising Hamas’s terrorism as justified “resistance,” and disruptive pro-Hamas protests that prevented people from physically entering or exiting buildings, working, or studying. There was also online harassment of Jewish students in a group chat, which included derogatory, vile, and antisemitic language. This rhetoric was so egregious that a perpetrator’s account was banned from a UMass public school page. The complaint urges OCR to compel the university’s administration to implement a series of measures necessary to secure the safety of Jewish students at UMass, including issuing a public statement condemning antisemitic hostility and the BDS movement, urging the university to incorporate the IHRA working definition of antisemitism into its campus policies to better recognize the types of antisemitic discrimination confronting Jewish students, and providing mandatory antisemitism training to university administrators, faculty, students and staff. In addition to ADL and the Brandeis Center, Jason Torchinsky and Erielle Davidson from Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC and Douglas Brooks from Libby Hoopes Brooks & Mulvey, P.C. are serving as the plaintiff’s counsel in this case. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is an independent, unaffiliated, nonprofit corporation established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. LDB engages in research, education, and legal advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses, in the workplace, and elsewhere. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators and employers on best practices to combat racism and anti-Semitism. More at www.brandeiscenter.com ADL is the leading anti-hate organization in the world. Founded in 1913, its timeless mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Today, ADL continues to fight all forms of antisemitism and bias, using innovation and partnerships to drive impact. A global leader in combating antisemitism, countering extremism and battling bigotry wherever and whenever it happens, ADL works to protect democracy and ensure a just and inclusive society for all. More at www.adl.org.
Presented by Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin This virtual presentation is intended for higher education leaders and administrators in departments related to student and academic affairs, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and legal affairs, communications, development, and positions such as president, provost, and deans’ offices, etc. More information is available about the Brandeis University Presidential Initiative to Counter Antisemitism in Higher Education and this event featuring President Lewin. Watch the video recording of President Lewin’s speech here and download her source sheet here.
The bill, which codifies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of Jew-hatred for Title VI purposes, passed 320-91 and is now Senate bound. Published 5/1/24 by Jewish News Syndicate; Story by Andrew Bernard (May 1, 2024 / JNS) The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act by a margin of 320-91 on Wednesday. The bill, H.R.6090, would require the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism when considering whether Jews had been discriminated against under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The legislation also discourages the use of other definitions, which may impair “enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism.” Critics cited concerns that the measure would stifle free speech. Of the 91 who voted “nay,” 70 were Democrats and 21 were Republicans. The U.S. Department of Education has used the IHRA definition of antisemitism in civil rights cases since 2018. The definition was given the force of law for executive agencies after former president Donald Trump issued an executive order applying the IHRA definition to Title VI cases in 2019. Two of the House Republicans who voted against the measure on Wednesday said that they were opposed to it because the IHRA definition states that “claims of Jews killing Jesus” are “classic antisemitism.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said that she would vote against the bill because of the role of “the Jews” in the crucifixion. “Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,” Greene wrote. “Read the bill text and contemporary examples of antisemitism like no. 9.” The bill, which was sponsored by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Max Miller (R-Ohio) and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), includes both the IHRA definition and its “contemporary examples.” The ninth example that Greene highlighted describes one potential case of Jew-hatred as, “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) similarly condemned the bill, claiming that the IHRA definition attacked the New Testament. “This legislation is written without regard for the Constitution, common sense or even the common understanding of the meaning of words,” Gaetz wrote. “The Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill!” “The Bible is clear,” Gaetz added. “There is no myth or controversy on this.” The Jewish Community Relations Council of Atlanta was quick to condemn Greene’s remarks on Wednesday. “One area that is not controversial in the IHRA definition: Blaming Jews for the death of Jesus is antisemitic,” the Atlanta JCRC wrote. “It has been the most consistent, most used excuse for Jew-hatred for nearly 2,000 years.” ‘Monumental vote will remove all doubt’ Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, praised the House’s passage of the bill, which he called “the game-changing response that we’ve been waiting for.” “It finally establishes as a matter of law that Jewish students are protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until now, this has been only a matter of informal guidance and an executive order,” Marcus stated. “IHRA is the international gold standard for defining antisemitism. It has been embraced by more than 1,000 entities, dozens of countries, and more than half of U.S. states.” “The Biden administration has long promised to codify the IHRA definition via regulation, but they have repeatedly missed their self-imposed deadlines. From conversations with numerous administrators, I can say that many university leaders are unaware that the IHRA definition is already woven into the Department of Education’s current, active guidance, hampering how they address soaring antisemitism on their campuses,” added Marcus, a former U.S. assistant secretary of education for civil rights. “Today’s monumental vote will remove all doubt.” “From a federal perspective, this legislation won’t change current practice so much as it will reinforce it. From a university perspective, however, there are few U.S. universities that are consistently applying the IHRA definition in appropriate cases,” he added. “This legislation should put a stop to that.” The Jewish Federations of North America, AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Orthodox Union, Combat Antisemitism Movement and Christians United for Israel applauded the bill’s passage in the House. The House’s passage of the bill “is crucial to combating the chaos spreading on America’s college campuses. The debate surrounding anti-Zionism as masked antisemitism is conclusively over and must be acted upon. This bill is an important step towards that,” stated Nathan Diament, executive director of public policy at the OU. “We urge the Senate to pass the bill. The time for words is over; we now need to act.”
Legislation Codifies Marcus’ 2004 Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter Washington, D.C. (May 1, 2024) – Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus issued the following statement in response to the U.S. House of Representatives’ approval of the long-awaited Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA) to combat “soaring” anti-Semitism on college campuses: “This is the game-changing response that we’ve been waiting for. It finally establishes as a matter of law that Jewish students are protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until now, this has been only a matter of informal guidance and an executive order. It also provides for the consistent, transparent use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, and ensures that it will be applied consistent with the First Amendment. IHRA is the international gold standard for defining anti-Semitism. It has been embraced by more than 1,000 entities, dozens of countries, and more than half of U.S. states. “The legislation also gives the force of law to the Trump Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. The Biden administration has said that they’re following this Order, but now it is formalized. Moreover, the Biden administration has long promised to codify the IHRA definition via regulation, but they have repeatedly missed their self-imposed deadlines. From conversations with numerous administrators, I can say that many university leaders are unaware that the IHRA definition is already woven into the Department of Education’s current, active guidance, hampering how they address soaring anti-Semitism on their campuses. Today’s monumental vote will remove all doubt. “From a federal perspective, this legislation won’t change current practice so much as it will reinforce it. From a university perspective, however, there are few U.S. universities that are consistently applying the IHRA definition in appropriate cases. This legislation should put a stop to that.” For two decades, Marcus has played a key role in helping craft and promote this policy. The AAA builds on a 2004 Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Dear Colleague Letter authored by Marcus when he headed OCR under President George W. Bush. That letter explained for the very first time the obligations of schools under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address religious discrimination and harassment, including anti-Semitism. The bill also adopts the primary public policy recommendation made by Marcus in his book, The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press: 2015), to codify IHRA. And he has been advocating for stronger responses to anti-Semitism ever since, including as head of OCR again under Donald Trump. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is an independent, unaffiliated, nonprofit corporation established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. LDB engages in research, education, and legal advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses, in the workplace, and elsewhere. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators and employers on best practices to combat racism and anti-Semitism.
Published in New York Post on 4/28/24. Story by Carl Campanile. Red hands painted on a tree at Pratt Institute’s Brooklyn campus are being used to “terrorize” Jewish students in a bloody reminder of a lynching of two Israelis, critics claim. “What better way to terrorize your Jewish students and faculty into submission than maintaining a display in the middle of your campus representing Jews getting lynched?” said Rory Lancman, senior counsel to the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, who forwarded The Post a snap of the tree with the symbol removed. Israeli Jews said the red hands were painful reminder of of the Ramallah Lynching of 2000, during the Second Intifada, when Israeli military reservists Yossi Avrahami and Vadim Nurzhitz were lynched by a massive Palestinian mob in Ramallah, West Bank, after they made a wrong turn in the Palestinian-run-region. One particular gruesome image from the murder became infamous when one of the killers, Aziz Salha, waved his bloodied hands from the lynching and dismemberment of the two Jews to the crowd. Historians said the infamous use of the red hands to kill Jews goes back much further. During the Jewish holiday of Shavuot in 1941, a pogrom was carried out against the Jewish community of Baghdad, Iraq. This pogrom is known as Farhud or “forced dispossession.” Red hands were painted on Jewish houses for identification for the pogrom, where homes were later burned and Jews slaughtered. Anti-Israel protesters have been seen at rallies painting red hands on buildings or painting their hands red. Lancman criticized Pratt professor Uzma Rizvi, who noted the “Red Hands” tree on the campus in an Instagram post. “Back to campus and I’m reminded of our students’ protest,” Rizvi said in the post. “NYT says they’re pulling some of the tanks out of the North. Why were tanks set up against civilians in the first place? #Cease Fire Now,” she said, while posting an image of the Palestinian flag. Pratt, in a statement to The Post, said the paint was removed from the tree on campus. “Any defacement to our campus property is addressed as quickly as possible, and we have removed the paint on the tree,” a Pratt spokesperson said. “Pratt Institute is an educational environment in which all students and faculty feel safe to learn, thrive, and know that their academic freedom and freedom of expression are protected,” the spokesperson sadded. “We do not tolerate speech or actions that are harassing, discriminatory, biased, or hateful against anyone. Our Community Standards foster a spirit of concern and respect for others, as do our safety and support resources for our students and faculty.” Professor Rizvi also heads the venerable college’s Academic Senate, which scheduled and then postponed a vote during Passover on a controversial resolution calling for an “academic and cultural boycott of Israel” — after The Brandeis Center sent a letter to Pratt officials claiming the exclusion of Jews from participating in the discussion smacked of discrimination. But a vote on the BDS resolution at the school known for its art, design and architecture programs — which the Brandeis Center said itself is antisemitic — could take place as early as Wednesday. The Post reached out to Rizvi for comment but did not receive a response.
This fact sheet defines Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), sometimes called Affinity Groups or Diversity Network groups. It also explains their legal significance and why employers must honor Jewish employees’ requests to establish Jewish ERGs. factsheet-jewish_employee_resourceDownload
Published in The Wall Street Journal on 4/21/24; Story by Vanessa Fuhrmans, Miles Kruppa, and Lauren Weber Google’s dismissal of protesting workers is the latest example of employers pushing back on pressure tactics by staff Business leaders are sending a warning to staff: Dissent that disrupts the workplace won’t be tolerated. Google’s decision to fire 28 workers involved in sit-in protests against the tech giant’s cloud-computing contract with the Israeli government is the most recent and starkest example of companies’ stricter stance. Rifts with employees have spilled into public view at National Public Radio, the New York Times and other workplaces. Bosses are losing patience with staff eager to be the conscience of their companies, especially as employees pressure them on charged issues such as politics and the war in Gaza, executives, board members and C-suite advisers say. The moves are a correction to the last several years, when corporate leaders often brooked dissent and encouraged staff to voice their personal convictions. On issues such as immigration policy and racial justice, many chief executives publicly expressed corporate solidarity. Google, in particular, has long prided itself on an open work culture that fostered internal debate, much like a college campus. It is an open question as to what rights workers really have to speak out on the job. “None of this is settled,” said Genevieve Lakier, a law professor at the University of Chicago. Workers in the private sector aren’t protected by the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, and “there is still a lot of uncertainty about how much free expression by workers is consistent with the operations of the workplace,” she said. Numerous workers reported being fired from companies after writing contentious social-media posts about the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel or the war in Gaza. At Google, leaders said the protesting workers violated company policy by taking over office spaces and disrupting work. While preserving the company’s open culture is important, Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote to staff afterward, “we also need to be more focused in how we work, collaborate, discuss and even disagree.” An unexpected firing Hasan Ibraheem, a Google software engineer who was arrested and then fired after taking part in the protest at the company’s New York office, said the firings didn’t square with his image of Google when he was hired less than two years ago. It was “the big company that was still fun and vibrant. You were allowed to express yourself,” said Ibraheem, 23, who had been active in pro-Palestinian demonstrations before joining Google. Though he knew of a few co-workers who had quit because of their opposition to the $1.2 billion Israeli contract that Google shares with Amazon, called Project Nimbus, he said he opted to stay so he could protest the contract from within. Google had been responsive to employee concerns about government work before. In 2018, it decided not to renew a separate Pentagon contract after that work became the subject of intense internal debate. The company also pledged not to make artificial-intelligence technology for military weapons and adopted a set of AI principles to guide its work. “I wasn’t expecting that my labor would be going toward aiding a genocide, and that if I spoke up against that I would be instantly fired,” Ibraheem said. Google said that, unlike the contract it canceled in 2018, the Project Nimbus contract isn’t aimed at being used for weapons or intelligence work. Some employees say they are worried the company is still aiding Israel’s war efforts. Google’s vice president of global security, Chris Rackow, told employees last week that the activists’ behavior “made co-workers feel threatened.” A Google spokesman said numerous staffers complained the protesters disrupted their work. Other companies have found themselves in clashes with dissenting employees. This month, NPR suspended a senior editor—who subsequently resigned—after he published a critique of the radio network’s news coverage in another media outlet. The New York Times, where divisions over its Gaza war coverage have roiled the newsroom, investigated whether staffers leaked confidential materials to another publication. It closed the probe last week without any conclusive finding. Starbucks sued the union representing around 410 of its more than 9,700 U.S. stores after local affiliates of Starbucks Workers United posted pro-Palestinian tweets and reshared an image of a bulldozer breaking through the fence encircling Gaza. The coffee chain alleged the union’s use of the Starbucks name and branding led people to misattribute such sentiment to the company. (The two sides have since said they are working toward resolving the litigation.) Shifting pressures Until recently, many company leaders viewed speaking out as less risky than appearing unresponsive to calls for social action—such as in the aftermath of George Floyd’s 2020 murder, when businesses voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement. But issues that have boiled over in workplaces since then—from state abortion bans to the war in Gaza—don’t lend themselves to simple pronouncements of solidarity or town halls where employees can share their personal experiences. The perils of being ensnared in partisan politics is changing the calculus of how responsive companies should be to any issue that doesn’t directly affect business, some executives and corporate advisers say. Many of them point to Disney’s now-resolved legal battle with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as a cautionary tale. The fight stemmed from Disney’s move in 2022 to publicly oppose Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, as it faced pressure from LGBTQ employees and advocacy groups. Last year’s damaging boycott of Anheuser-Busch InBev’s Bud Light—after the brand’s marketing promotion with a transgender influencer—has also made companies leery of moves that risk landing them in a culture war, they say. Corporate leaders “are very concerned about public backlash, especially boards of directors,” said Jonathan Bernstein, founder and chairman of Bernstein Crisis Management, which advises companies on corporate communications and reputation management. Ignoring workplace dissent isn’t an option either, he said. Several clients, he said, are wrestling with squabbling staff on email and Slack over issues ranging from the war in Gaza to U.S. politics. Marissa Andrada, former chief people officer at Chipotle Mexican Grill and now a board director at Krispy Kreme, said she was surprised how swiftly Google moved to fire the protesting workers. In those situations, she said, “it is often better to take a pause, make sure all the facts are understood.” Andrada recalls the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade, when she was still at Chipotle. Among staff, there were varying views on the ruling, and “employees were asking what we stood for,” she said. Chipotle’s health plan covered travel costs in other instances where workers’ medical treatment required out-of-state care. It would therefore do the same, if necessary, for family planning and abortion care, Chipotle said in a memo to its women’s employee resource group, which had raised the question. “We didn’t make up a new rule or put out a public statement,” she said. “We looked at what was consistent with our existing policy and values.” No way to avoid offense Acting on employee demands risks offending workers with opposing views. Lisa Marshall, a housing attorney with a nonprofit law firm, woke up one day this year to discover that her union had passed a resolution condemning Israel’s attacks on Gaza. Marshall, an Orthodox Jew, said she saw the resolution as a direct affront to her Jewish identity. Leaving the union wasn’t an option in Massachusetts, where she works and lives. So she filed a request to the UAW, the parent of Marshall’s union, to be a religious objector, which allows her to withhold her union dues and pay them to a nonprofit instead. She now routes her dues to the Brandeis Center, a Jewish civil rights group that advised her during this process. Her union declined to comment. Marshall said she appreciates the union’s role in fighting for pay, job security, retirement plans and benefits, but believes the resolution was an overstep, and painful for Jewish members. Google’s CEO made a similar point in explaining why the company had quickly fired its protesting employees. “This is a business, and not a place to act in a way that disrupts co-workers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform.” Pichai said in his email to staff. “This is too important a moment as a company for us to be distracted,” he added.