By William A. Jacobson
Legal Insurrection
February 5, 2019

In December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) became the first, and so far the only, major American academic association to adopt the academic boycott of Israel, part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).

As I have documented, the BDS movement is a continuation of the anti-Jewish boycotts of the 1920s and 1930s in the then British Mandate for Palestine, the Arab League boycott of Jewish businesses (even prior to Israel’s independence) and later of Israel, and the gross antisemitic activism at the 2001 Tehran and Durban conferences which launched boycotts in the current form.

The claim that BDS was a response to a 2005 call from Palestinian civil society is a demonstrable lie. That was the cover story to repackage an anti-Jewish boycott in the language of ‘social justice’, as documented in my lecture, The REAL history of the BDS movement:

The fallout from the December 2013 ASA resolution was swift. The ASA action, which is considered a violation of academic freedom by the American Association of University Professors, was condemned by over 250 university presidents and numerous university associations. ASA tried to exclude Israelis from its annual meeting in California, but the threat of legal action caused ASA to back down.

In April 2016, ASA and its leaders were sued in federal court in D.C. by other ASA members, claiming irregularities in the way ASA adopted the boycott.

We have covered the various events in the litigation in prior posts, which you can read for full legal background:

• American Studies Association and its leaders sued over Israel boycott
• Judge: Lawsuit against American Studies Assoc over BDS can move forward
• Lawsuit: BDS movement engineered takeover of American Studies Association
• Court allows expanded lawsuit against American Studies Association and lead faculty activists over Israel Boycott
• In blow to anti-Israel profs, lawsuit against American Studies Association over BDS to stay in federal court

One issue that has troubled the Judge, as expressed in prior opinions, was whether there was federal jurisdiction for the case to be in federal court under what is called “diversity jurisdiction.”

I explained the issue in a prior post regarding the Judge’s decision to allow the case to move forward:

In that [prior] ruling, however, the Court raised an issue the parties had not raised, whether the federal court had “subject matter” jurisdiction. What that means is that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. You need to show either that there is a federal question involved in the case, or that there is diversity jurisdiction (none of the plaintiffs are citizens of the same state as any of the defendants) and there is at least $75,000 in controversy. Absent one of those types of jurisdiction, the court could not hear the case and it would have to be litigated in state or D.C. courts.

The Court stayed the litigation while it decided the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

After several months, the Court finally ruled, and held that there was subject matter jurisdiction, so the case can be reactivated and continued in federal court…

The Court’s Memorandum Opinion (pdf)(full embed at bottom of the post) goes into detail on the nuances of federal court jurisdiction. You nerds can read it in its entirety.

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is something a court is required to consider throughout the case, even during trial. It’s clearly an issue that continued to trouble the court, as is issued an Opinion on February 4, 2019 (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of this post), dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, even though the court found that plaintiffs might have meritorious claims. Plaintiffs will have to file those claims, the Judge ruled, in a court other than federal court.

Here are some key passages from the Opinion:

Currently before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss the action, along with other miscellaneous motions. Having reviewed the briefing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs may have meritorious claims arising from their individual injuries as ASA members. However, the Court also concludes that Plaintiffs cannot seek relief for ASA’s injuries, because ASA is not a plaintiff and Plaintiffs do not and cannot assert derivative claims on its behalf. Without that relief, Plaintiffs cannot meet the amount-in-controversy necessary to pursue their action in federal court. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice.

* * *

As noted, Plaintiffs contend that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). SAC ¶ 11. That statute provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between,” among others, “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendants argue that the Court’s previous holdings have made it legally impossible for Plaintiffs’ claims to exceed the $75,000 amount-in-controversy required to maintain this action under § 1332(a).6 More specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot seek remedies arising from injuries to ASA, and that in the absence of those remedies the damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief that Plaintiffs seek cannot be valued at greater than $75,000. See Original Defs.’ Mot. at 1. Defendants thus move to dismiss the action in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

* * *

As Plaintiffs note, the parties and the Court have danced around the key issue—Plaintiffs’ ability to satisfy the amount-in-controversy required by § 1332(a)—for multiple rounds of briefing and opinions. See Bronner III, 317 F. Supp. 3d at 289; Bronner I, 249 F. Supp. 3d at 37–38. The waltz has now reached its crescendo, and Plaintiffs have been found wanting. As explained below, having evaluated the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek damages arising from ASA’s alleged injuries. Although Plaintiffs may seek damages arising from injuries they suffered directly, those damages do not approach $75,000. And Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the value of the injunctive and declaratory relief they seek, combined with those damages, exceeds $75,000. Thus, because it appears to a legal certainty that Plaintiffs cannot meet 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)’s requirements if they prevail, the Court must dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

* * *

Plaintiffs lack standing to seek damages on behalf of ASA and it is clear, to a legal certainty, that their remaining claims do not raise an amount-in-controversy exceeding $75,000. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).14 See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 289. Plaintiffs have raised allegations and presented evidence indicating that they may have meritorious claims, but they must assert those claims before the proper tribunal.

As can be seen from the plain wording of the opinion, the dismissal was not based on the merits. To the contrary, the court noted that the plaintiffs may have meritorious claims, based on what he has seen. Rather, the dismissal was solely jurisdictional based on the “amount in controversy” under federal decisions defining that concept.

Also, the decision had nothing to do with whether ASA and the individuals had a constitutional right to boycott Israel — that simply was not an issue, the court previously having permitted the lawsuit to move forward pending resolution of the “amount in controversy” issue. The Court previously ruled:

This case does not present a First Amendment issue because the Court’s passive enforcement of the obligations expressly assumed by the parties does not constitute state action. Plaintiffs take issue with actions by Defendants that were allegedly inconsistent with the ASA’s organizational purpose, constitution, and bylaws. See Compl. ¶ 1 (“An academic boycott of a foreign country is simply outside of the ASA’s authority to act.”). Thus, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enforce the contract that the Plaintiffs and Defendants freely entered into when they voluntarily subjected themselves to the constitution and bylaws of the ASA. See Meshel, 869 A.2d at 361. Defendants, Plaintiffs argue, voluntarily assumed certain obligations toward the ASA when they took on leadership positions within the organization, and that they violated those obligations through their roles in passage of the boycott resolution. See Compl. ¶¶ 79–80, 83–84, 88–89, 92–93.

Plaintiffs’ claims all arise under generally-applicable laws. See Armenian Genocide Museum & Mem’l, Inc. v. Cafesjian Family Found., Inc., 607 F. Supp. 2d 185, 190–91 (D.D.C. 2009) (setting forth the elements of breach of fiduciary duty); Adamski v. McHugh, No. 14-cv-0094 (KBJ), 2015 WL 4624007, at *6 (D.D.C. July 31, 2015) (describing the law governing ultra vires claims); Daley, 26 A.3d at 730 (describing the doctrine of waste); Compton v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 3d 1, 16 (D.D.C. 2014) (setting forth the elements of breach of contract), aff’d, 639 F. App’x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2016); D.C. Code § 29-405.24 (outlining the procedures all nonprofit organizations must follow). They also only seek to enforce rights created at the initiation of private parties; Individual Defendants voluntarily assumed roles where their right to expression would be limited by bylaws, the common law, and statute. Because Defendants voluntarily assented to these laws and the ASA’s constitution and bylaws, the Court’s interference with speech is passive and incidental to enforcement of a contract. Thus, enforcement of Plaintiffs’ rights derived from that contract would not constitute state action as contemplated under Sullivan and Shelley, meaning there would be no First Amendment issue with a judgment for Plaintiffs

The reality of the Judge’s Opinion has not stopped anti-Israel activists from claiming this was a decision on the merits and an judicial endorsement of the right to boycott.

Controversial former professor Steven Salaita, one of the named defendants, claims:

“I’m thrilled that this baseless case has been dismissed. It served no purpose other than persecuting those who dare to criticize Israeli policy and seek to end the occupation through peaceful means,” said Dr. Salaita. “Our victory further illustrates that it’s important to stand firm against attempts to silence those devoted to the cause of justice.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which acts as de facto counsel to the BDS movement, also claimed a substantive victory:

“These desperate lawsuits brought to silence advocates of Palestinian rights are not only losers—they’re helping to grow the movement by making even clearer who’s on the wrong side of history, who is the aggressor, who is unreasonable, and who wants to silence debate,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Deputy Legal Director Maria LaHood. “Freedom, justice and equality have always been on the right side of history.”

The Electronic Intifada reported on additional reactions portraying the win as substantive:

“The court basically said, in no uncertain words, that the plaintiffs suing ASA lied when they claimed to have ‘suffered significant economic and reputational damage.’” Radhika Sainath, senior attorney with the civil rights group Palestine Legal, told The Electronic Intifada. “But, as the court explained, ‘nowhere’ in the lawsuit could could the plaintiffs explain what that damage was. It didn’t pass the smell test.” ….

“The Zionists can’t accept the extent of revulsion over Israel’s crimes so they imagine that any group that stands up for justice has been tricked and manipulated into doing so,” Mark Kleiman, the attorney for J. Kehualani Kaunui and Jasbir Puar, told The Electronic Intifada.

“This blindness partially stems from their own reliance on tricks, bribes and subterfuge to slow down what is rapidly becoming a mass movement,” Kleiman added.

“In this lawsuit they simply made up accusations and then pretended they had been harmed by the things they imagined people had done.”

The case is not over, however, though it may be over in federal court.

According to Jennie Gross, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs “certainly going to continue the litigation” but have “not decided yet whether they will appeal judge’s decision or will go directly to state court. What is not on the table is walking away from the case.”

In a lengthy press release, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers vowed to continue the fight:

When the American Studies Association adopted an academic boycott of Israel, several members of the ASA filed a lawsuit against that form of economic warfare against Israel, which discriminates against Israeli academics and violates fundamental principles of academic freedom. We represent those brave members.

Now, three years after the filing of this lawsuit, and upon review of the claims, the federal district court in the District of Columbia found only one reason to put off our clients’ claims – not because there was no substantive basis for the lawsuit, not because the current leadership of the ASA was justified for dragging its association into a bigoted effort to sabotage Israeli academics and institutions, but solely because it held that the amount in controversy requirement for federal court, $75,000, was not yet met.
The court recognized the value of our substantive claims, noting the case can be filed in state court: “Plaintiffs have raised allegations and presented evidence indicating that they may have meritorious claims, but they must assert those claims before the proper tribunal.” Order at 19.

We fully intend to go forward with this lawsuit, whether in federal court, should we choose to appeal the amount in controversy dismissal, or in state court, where there is no amount in controversy requirement.

In fact, since the initial filing, far more grievous conduct by the defendants has been uncovered, including a secret plot to overtake the authority of the ASA for the sole purpose of pursuing this hateful academic boycott, and to divert ASA funds to support their nefarious behavior. This plot was uncovered by our review of the defendants’ own documents, which we obtained in discovery.
Many of the defendants’ uncovered secret documents are quoted in a subsequent amended complaint which alleges, as the court describes: “that Defendants coopted an apolitical educational organization and, against its members’ wishes, turned that organization into a mouthpiece of the Israel boycott movement.” Order at 1.

The amended complaint reveals the defendants’ secret scheme to pack the national council with directors whose primary intention was to pass the academic boycott of Israel. It also describes how defendants manipulated the vote on the boycott, by freezing the rolls of the ASA membership to minimize the number of opponents able to vote, and how the defendants silenced dissenting voices – to the point where it refused to share letters opposing the boycott, including a letter from Association of American University Professors, among others.

Later, evidence of the financial damage to the ASA became apparent. Since the boycott was adopted, $294,000 has been withdrawn from the ASA’s trust fund. This information was gleaned from only two years’ worth of materials produced by defendants. Previously, there had been no withdrawals from the capital of the ASA’s trust fund. Defendants’ own documents show that these withdrawals were made to pay expenses related to the boycott. The ASA’s most recent tax return reflects an association deep in the red.

Our clients are four esteemed professors of American Studies. They include lifetime honorary members of the ASA, winners of the ASA’s Turpie Award, and a former editor of the ASA’s Encyclopedia of American Studies. They brought this case because they believe that the ASA’s academic boycott of Israel violates cherished principles of academic freedom. They opposed the academic boycott on the same grounds as the American Association of University Professors, the presidents of dozens of universities, numerous former presidents of the ASA, and many, many others. They also believe that the individual defendants violated democratic principles and the ASA Constitution and Bylaws in the adoption of the academic boycott.
We will present these claims and look forward to a decision on the merits.

Jerome M. Marcus
Marcus & Auerbach, LLP

Jennifer Gross
The Deborah Project, Inc.

Rachel Lerman
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

We will continue to follow this case if and when it moves either to appeal or a different court.

Alyza Lewin
Kol Habirah
January 21, 2019

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is campaigning against existing and proposed federal and local laws that would deter boycotts of Israel popularized by the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS). Their argument is that requiring all businesses who want to contract with the state to certify that they do not engage in a boycott of Israel violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU’s challenge of such a law in Arizona is now before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Brandeis Center, of which I am president, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the constitutionality of Arizona’s law; the brief was written largely by Akiva Shapiro, a partner in the New York office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and this op-ed borrows liberally from that brief.

Federal, state, and local governments across the United States regularly and appropriately use conditions in government contracts to promote equality under the law, combat discrimination, and ensure that public funds are not used for illegal or invidious purposes. Conditions on contracting are a pillar of anti-discrimination laws at all levels of government. The First Amendment does not require the government to subsidize discriminatory conduct.

However, these regulations only target discriminatory conduct, not speech,by state contractors. Contractors may speak passionately, associate, and advocate openly in any forum and on any subject, even an anti-Israel boycott. They may also forego state contracts if they choose to engage in an active boycott of Israel.

The Arizona legislature found “Companies that refuse to deal with United States trade partners such as Israel, or entities that do business with or in such countries, make discriminatory decisions on the basis of national origin that impair those companies’ commercial soundness.” Arizona joined 25 other states that have imposed similar conditions on those seeking government contracts. A majority of these states require contractors to certify their compliance. The federal government places similar anti-discrimination conditions on funding public and private universities.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed government power to use funding as an incentive or disincentive, even to affect behavior that government may not regulate directly. In a decision rendered in 1998, the Supreme Court said “the government may allocate competitive funding according to criteria that would be impermissible were direct regulation of speech or a criminal penalty at stake” (National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley). And in 2003, the court ruled that a condition requiring content-filtering software for libraries that applied for government funding did not violate the First Amendment because it did not “penalize libraries that choose not to install such software, or deny them the right to provide their patrons with unfiltered Internet access” but only “reflects Congress’ decision not to subsidize their doing so” (United States v. American Library Association).

Discrimination is not protected speech. Private discrimination on the basis of national origin, religion, gender, and other classifications is prohibited in employment and public accommodations by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A boycott focusing on a single country discriminates on the basis of national origin by categorically treating that country’s products and businesses as different from all others, regardless of their relative merit.

Discrimination today against the Jewish people is often disguised as opposition to the State of Israel. Boycott campaigns have been a traditional outlet for anti-Semitism. Nazi encouragement resulted in boycotts of Jewish businesses in Germany in the 1930s. The Nazi regime’s first nationwide action against Germany’s Jews was a boycott.

The Brandeis Center’s founder, Kenneth Marcus, noted, “the pre-Nazi, Nazi, Arab League, and BDS boycotts all share common elements: they seek to deny Jewish legitimacy or normalcy as punishment for supposed Jewish transgressions.” Marcus has also observed that some proponents of BDS “act out of conscious hostility to the Jewish people; others act from unconscious or tacit disdain for Jews; and still others operate out of a climate of opinion that contains elements that are hostile to Jews and serve as the conduits through whom anti-Jewish tropes and memes are communicated.”

The ACLU’s position rests on a perverse interpretation: The ACLU argues that government must subsidize discriminatory conduct. Such a rule is not required — or even supported — by the First Amendment. It conflicts with a deeply embedded web of federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. Government must have the power to discourage discriminatory boycotts by prescribing non-discrimination conditions in government contracts.

By Alyza D. Lewin

By Edwin Black
Times of Israel

January 17, 2019

Organized disruptors — both students and non-students — who shut down a pro-Israel gathering at University of California Los Angeles in May 2018 might not be prosecuted, according to information from LA City Attorney Mike Feuer’s office. Instead, they will be called to a confidential but mandatory proceeding called a “City Attorney Hearing,” an alternative to prosecution which can be described as a “warning” not to repeat the conduct. One legal expert compared it to a “deferred prosecution,” but stressed a full trial could still result. Victims generally do not appear at such a hearing, the City Attorney’s office explained, and generally no criminal record attaches. Still, the prosecutor retains the right to issue charges later if he feels the illegal conduct has recurred or may recur. Los Angeles conducts hundreds of such closed-door hearings each year to dispose of minor misdemeanors arising from, for example, neighbor disputes, domestic disharmony, or curfew violations.

To the south of Los Angeles, newly-installed Orange County Prosecutor Todd Spitzer is still undecided about prosecuting rambunctious disruptors of a pro-Israel event at University of California Irvine which also took place last May, according to official university sources. Spitzer’s office has asked for additional police investigation to develop more facts.

With or without actual prosecution, the two incidents and the Jewish community’s response have potentially changed the landscape for belligerent disruption of pro-Israel events on California campuses, which last year arguably yielded some of the most pernicious in the nation. Those involved in the two California events—the affected students and the Jewish communal groups who rose to invoke prosecutions—expressed a range of reactions as to whether justice has been minimally obtained or seriously delayed.

StandWithUs and Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law pivotally intervened to jump-start the criminal referral process on both UC campuses. Roz Rothstein, StandWithUs CEO, commented, “It shows good progress that the [Los Angeles] authorities are holding the disruptors accountable for attempting to remove the freedom of speech from those they disagree with.” Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, added, “We are gratified by this development. At long last, the universities are holding responsible the perpetrators of these egregious event disruptions. We trust this will deter similar behavior in the future and demonstrate that universities must take such criminal conduct seriously.”

A spokesperson for Canary Mission, the anonymous online watchdog that closely monitored both cases, commented, “This is not a strong enough response.” Justin Feldman, president of Students Supporting Israel, himself victimized by the harassment, agreed, stating, “As one of the proponents of the effort to hold disruptors accountable at UCLA, I am deeply disappointed that such accused students will merely face a ‘slap on the wrist’ for their deliberate misconduct in silencing student voices on campus.”

Outrage first emerged after two separate but particularly belligerent disruptions of pro-Israel UC student events in May 2018. On May 7, College Republicans at UCI, hosting Israeli reservists, saw their session shattered by a sudden invasion (see video at minute 42:00) of bullhorn-wielding BDS advocates chanting anti-Israel slogans. A few days later, on May 17, Students Supporting Israel at UCLA sponsored an outreach panel discussion with indigenous students only to have it violently shut down(see video at 41:00) by nose-to-nose BDS harassment. Both dramatic disruptions were captured on viral video.

For Jewish students and legal defense groups, the two egregious incidents were the tipping point of campus harassment at UC schools. The consensus among Jewish leadership and students was that the school administrations had consciously created a permissive anti-Israel atmosphere so toxic that it virtually encouraged increasingly severe forms of anti-Israel harassment. At UCI, the video shows bull-horn disruption going for several minutes as police and university administrators watched.

Disruption of public meetings explicitly violates California law. Three statutes pertain.

Title 11, Sec. 403 concerns event disruption. “Every person who … willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting … is guilty of a misdemeanor.” This was the very statute used to successfully prosecuteand convict the “Irvine 11.” Title 11, Sec. 415 involves disturbing the peace. The statute calls for jail time for “any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.” Title 11, Sec. 182, a conspiracy statute, can be invoked when “two or more persons conspire to commit any crime.”

Initially, both UCLA and UCI administrations declined to refer the incidents to the police for investigation and prosecution. This reinforced the belief that the permissive environment on campus actually promoted harassment as a bizarre species of free speech. Moreover, the legal system itself permits the universities to exercise broad discretion—allowing them to simply look the other way.  California’s unusual state laws juridically enable the universities to potentially create a double standard and promote unequal justice. The UC administration can decide who shall be referred to its own police force, and who shall be given a pass, or subjected to so-called “academic discipline.” No referral to the police means no referral to prosecutors.

Two California statutes create the system. The California Education Code empowers UC officials to function as jurisdictions unto themselves—as though they were small cities. They can hire their own police departments and exercise discretion on police policy and conduct. Section 92600 states, “The Regents of the University of California are authorized and empowered to appoint one or more persons to be members of the University of California Police Department … [and] are peace officers … upon the campuses of the University of California and an area within one mile of the exterior boundaries of each thereof.”

Section 830.2 of the California Penal Code states: “A member of the University of California Police Department, appointed pursuant to Section 92600 of the Education Code, is a peace officer whose authority extends to any place in the state … specified in Section 92600 of the Education Code.” The law also vests campus officers with “concurrent jurisdiction with local law enforcement agencies.”

Within legal limits, UC police departments function like a private force, answerable to the campus administration, which, in turn, often pivots on the dictates of the college’s public affairs managers. If a university wants to downplay an incident, it can exercise discretion and instruct the police forces to overlook a disruption. If the police departments do not investigate and refer a case to prosecutors, no criminal action will be taken by prosecutors.

Observers believe a built-in conflict of interest and system of unequal justice can rule when publicity-shy media relations managers can give campus police their marching orders.

One Jewish organization president called it “shameful,” adding “a UC campus is not acting ‘neutrally’ when it shields students from prosecution.”

Indeed, at UCLA, the campus administration officials were extremely sensitive to the adverse publicity attending the video of SSI students being harassed. Campus police referred all inquiries to UCLA Media Relations. When this reporter, first contacted Tad Tamberg, senior executive director of media relations at UCLA, he referred to a Letter to the Editor in the campus newspaper and declined to discuss the matter further or answer any questions. At one point when this reporter said, “May I ask a question?” Tamberg snapped back, “No, you may not.”

UCLA campus police, eager to address the offense, repeatedly and apologetically declined to answer any questions, stating they were under specific instructions from Media Relations to refuse to answer. This included even UCLA PD media spokesman. Ironically, the UCLA police manual mandates, in section 505 entitled, “NEWS MEDIA,” that “In accordance with department policy, employees shall make every effort to cooperate and assist members of the news media, using care to ensure that any release of information is not detrimental to the conduct of police operations.”

UCI had a very different response. Its media manager facilitated exploration of the criminal aspect of the incident and quickly assured its police department would investigate and refer the matter to prosecutors. The UCI investigation is still underway.

UCLA’s refusal to refer its students for prosecution or even investigate the crime was thwarted when legal staff at StandWithUs and the Brandeis Center converged on the campus to walk students into the UCLA PD and UCI police stations to file criminal complaints. Filing those complaints forced the police to investigate and then refer the case to prosecutors. Ultimately that included both student and non-student participants.

Whether or not the perpetrators at UCLA or UCI are prosecuted, it seems the reality on the ground at UC campuses has been altered. In the days after Thanksgiving 2018, this writer delivered four consecutive lectures on Israel history at California campuses: UC Davis, UC Berkeley, San Francisco State, and UCLA. Despite concerns, no interference or disruption manifested.

The UCLA event was sponsored by a coalition of groups including the same Students Supporting Israel chapter that had been harassed last May. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center attended to kick off the event which was livestreamed. At UCLA, it was a new day. When campus police learned of the event, they took immediate steps to ensure it would proceed with no interference. Two UCLA PD officers were dispatched to the event itself, both highly trained and deeply conversant with the pro-Israel and Jewish communal scene. A representative of the administration joined the officers. The police and administration declared that, in the event of a disruption, perpetrators would be given one warning to immediately cease and desist; and if they did not, “they will be arrested and charged.” This, coupled with the LA Prosecutor’s watchful eye, combined to insulate the event from criminal disruption.

Thus, thanks to leadership at StandWithUs and the Brandeis Center, and courageous students who stepped forward, combined with intense media scrutiny, the rate of acceleration of anti-Semitism on campus and especially at UC colleges, has been temporarily slowed—at least, slowed for the moment.

November 26, 2018

One World News

A group that fights for the rights of Jewish students on college campuses has launched a new initiative.

JIGSAW – “Justice Initiative Guiding Student Activists Worldwide” – is the brainchild of Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center. She explains the reason she introduced JIGSAW.

“One of the things that we have found is that undergraduate law students and, quite frankly, even attorneys don’t understand all of the legal tools available to combat anti-Semitism. It requires a knowledge of multiple areas of law,” she emphasizes.

Specifically, the goals of JIGSAW are:

• To provide law school students with the in-depth legal training and expertise needed to effectively combat anti-Semitism and BDS on campus.
• To enable these trained law students to act as mentors to undergraduate students to help them more effectively address anti-Semitism and BDS on campus.
• To educate and train the next generation of pro-Israel attorneys so they develop from first-hand experience not only a keen understanding of the necessary legal tools to combat anti-Semitism but also the motivation to remain engaged, effective advocates after they graduate law school.

The Center, she continues, will be selecting a group of 12 law students to serve as their first pilot group of JIGSAW fellows.

“They’ll be selected based on their academics and their interests, but also their geographic regions of the country – because the idea will be to have these JIGSAW fellows spread out across the country so that they can assist neighboring universities,” Lewin explains.

She says they want to grow the program to 50 fellows next year and to 100 after that. And then, Lewin says, as the law students graduate and become lawyers, they’ll be able to continue their work.

Original Article

Ct Jewish Ledger
November 19, 2018

WASHINGTON, DC – The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, in conjunction with Hasbara Fellowships, on Friday, Nov. 2 launched JIGSAW Initiative, a innovative pilot program to train law students to combat and prevent resurgent antisemitism.

“Antiemitism is escalating at a frightening rate in the U.S.,” said Alyza D. Lewin, Brandeis Center president and general counsel. “We must reverse this rising tide of antisemitism and ethnic racism, and there is no substitute for legal action. By properly training a select team of law students to work with undergraduates and utilize specific legal tools and strategy, we can begin to take the offensive in this battle.”

According to the FBI’s latest reporting, in the United States there were more incidents of antisemitism than all other religious hate crimes combined. The ADL reports antisemitic incidents rose 57% across the nation last year, and 89% on college campuses alone.

JIGSAW – an acronym for that stands for Justice Initiative Guiding Student Activists Worldwide – will train a specialized corps of law students to utilize legal tools and expertise to combat both classic/white supremacist and anti-Israel antisemitism. After they graduate, former JIGSAW Fellows will have the knowledge and personal expertise to address incidents nationwide. They will engage in both joint training with the the Brandeis Center’s Hasbara Fellows, as well as a separate legal-based curriculum specifically developed by Brandeis Center attorneys. In addition, JIGSAW Fellows will participate in a trip to Israel, where they will meet Israeli government officials, Palestinian representatives, academics, journalists, and representatives from humanitarian organizations.

According to Lerman, the pilot program will begin by training 12 law students and will grow each year. “Our goal is to select students who are dispersed geographically across the country, so that each law student can cover a geographic region, and to eventually expand the program to other countries, such as Canada and the U.K.,” she said.

The Brandeis Center is now accepting applications for the JIGSAW Initiative today. For information, visit brandeiscenter.com.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc., is an independent, nonprofit organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people. It is not affiliated with Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Original Article