On February 5th, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the appointment of Elan Carr to serve as the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism. Carr, a Jewish Iraq War veteran and lawyer, will be the first Special Envoy to serve during the Trump administration. Carr’s appointment has garnered widespread bipartisan support.

 

As Special Envoy, a position that was created during the George W. Bush administration in 2004, Carr will advance US foreign policy on anti-Semitism, developing and implementing policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism abroad. Carr is uniquely qualified for such a task, since he not only has the professional expertise needed, but also has a personal connection to anti-Semitism.

 

After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Carr’s grandfather was forced to participate in a staged trial in Iraq. These anti-Semitic trials targeted Jewish civilians, and his grandfather was convicted on false charges of distributing communist propaganda and sentenced to prison for five years, two of which were for “calling Muslim witnesses liars.” During his prison sentence, the rest of his relatives (including his mother) were able to flee to Israel in 1950.

 

A descendant of Adballah Somekh, the chief Rabbi of Baghdad in the 19th century, Carr received a Jewish education at a Jewish day school in New York. He spoke Hebrew at home and traveled to Israel throughout his childhood. While getting his undergraduate degree from University of California, Berkeley, he joined Alpha Epsilon Pi, where he would later serve as international president.

 

Carr went on to study law at Northwestern University, where he frequently recalled his grandfather “naively attempting to exculpate himself in an Iraqi court that was never intended to be a fair tribunal.” Carr’s grandfather continued to serve as his role model, admiring that “he actually had the audacity to defend himself.” After law school, Carr practiced commercial litigation at a law firm in New York before becoming a legal adviser to Israel’s Ministry of Justice in the 1990s.

 

In 1997, Carr returned to the US and joined the military in an attempt to “shoulder a portion of the burden of defending the United States.” In 2003, Carr was deployed to Iraq where he served as an anti-terrorism officer and as a judge advocate. While he was deployed, Carr managed to maintain his Jewish identity. He regularly led Shabbat services for his fellow soldiers and even lit Hanukkah candles at one of Saddam Hussein’s presidential palaces. While speaking of the experience he said, “What a privilege it was to express myself Jewishly and provide Jewish services to Jewish soldiers in as unlikely a place as Baghdad, from which [Scud missiles] were launched into Israel only a few years before. We lit a Hanukkiah and said, ‘Banu hoshekh legharesh — we have come to banish darkness.’”

 

Since finishing his military service in 2004, Carr has served as a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles, and has also traveled across North America and Israel to lecture on terrorism and the Middle East. In 2014, he ran as a Republican candidate representing California’s 33rd congressional district and in 2016, Carr he ran to represent the 5th Supervisorial District on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

 

Carr’s appointment has garnered widespread support. Groups like the American Jewish Committee, the Israeli-American Council, and the Anti-Defamation League have all praised his appointment. Additionally, his appointment has garnered bipartisan support. Democrat Rep. Nita Lowey has stated that the appointment is “long overdue” and is hopeful that “he will work with Congress to ensure that the US remains a leader in the fight against anti-Semitism.” The Republican Jewish Coalition has also stated their support, saying that Carr is “a principled, fierce fighter against injustice, oppression, and hatred.”

 

Carr’s predecessor, Ira Forman, has also praised the appointment, saying that Carr’s political skills, military service, Jewish upbringing, mixed Mizrahi-Ashkenazi heritage, and his fluency in Arabic and Hebrew make him a “great fit” for the position. US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Chair Tenzin Dorjee said, “With anti-Semitism on the rise, especially in Europe, it is more important than ever that this special envoy position be filled and properly staffed. We wish Mr. Carr well in this vital position and look forward to working with him to fight the scourge of anti-Semitism around the world.”

 

The Brandeis Center has joined a growing coalition of organizations and individuals in their support for Carr’s appointment. Combat Anti-Semitism is a new non-partisan effort to “offer moral support to the envoy and all those in the US government active in the very important mission to combat global anti-Semitism and to encourage civic society to continue to stand up to hate and bigotry in the world, and specifically anti-Semitism.” Over 20,000 individuals and organizations have signed Combat Anti-Semitism’s pledge, declaring that “anti-Semitism is a scourge upon our world and pledge our full commitment to its eradication.”

Official emblem of the World Council of Churches – Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The World Council of Churches (WCC) is currently training their volunteers to promote the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and uses blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric. Interestingly, the WCC receives funding, either directly or indirectly, from nations that have accepted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. While the WCC recently denied charges of anti-Semitism against them, evidence suggests that they have been spreading anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment for years.

 

Since 2002, the WCC has sent 1,800 “ecumenical accompaniers” to Jerusalem and the West Bank, as part of their Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI).  They aim to have 25-30 ecumenical accompaniers on the ground at all times, hoping that their “presence makes the costs of human rights abuses more apparent to the perpetrators, persuades them to act differently, and deters attacks on civilians.” They also monitor human rights violations and “stand with local peace and human rights groups.” EAPPI’s key principles also say that “We are not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian and we do not take sides in the conflict. We are pro-human rights and international humanitarian law.”

 

The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism lists “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” as an example of anti-Semitism. WCC and EAPPI activists have clearly made such comparisons. WCC’s general secretary Rev. Dr. Olav Fyske Tveit has said, “I heard about the occupation of my country during the five years of World War II as the story of my parents. Now I see and hear the stories of 50 years of occupation.” In 2017, Rev. Gordon Timbers of the Presbyterian Church of Canada said he saw similarities between gas chambers in Europe and the West Bank. During a South African Apartheid Week event, EAPPI activist Itani Rasalanavho said, “the time has come to say that the victims of the Holocaust have now become the perpetrators.” Rev. Joan Fisher, also an EAPPI activist, has quoted a Palestinian cleric as saying, “We are sympathetic to the suffering of our Jewish brothers and sisters in the Holocaust, but you don’t deal with one injustice by creating another injustice.”

 

The WCC supports boycotts of Israeli settlements, while EAPPI activists have called for a boycott of all of Israel. In 2012, one of EAPPI’s publications called for “sanctions and suspension of US aid to Israel,” to “challenge Israel in local and international courts,” and for “economic boycotts.” That same year, EAPPI’s National Coordinator in South Africa signed a letter that called “on our government and civil society to instigate broad-based boycott, divestment and sanctions on Israel.”

 

WCC and EAPPI members have also discouraged and attacked Christian Zionism. During a WCC event in 2015, Zionism was called “heresy” under Christian theology. Additionally, the leadership compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, modern Israelis were said to have no connection to the ancient Israelites, and Israeli society was said to be “full with racism and light skin privilege.” In 2016, EAPPI activist Hannah Griffiths blamed the “Jewish lobby” for American Christian Evangelicals’ support of Israel. She also went on to claim that Israel plants knives on the bodies of Palestinian terrorists who were shot after attempting to stab Israelis.

 

EAPPI activists frequently spread misinformation and falsehoods about Israel. In the UK, one activist said that Israel has a policy to reduce the Arab population by sending them to the West Bank or Gaza. A volunteer in Canada said that Israelis are not allowed in Area A (controlled by the Palestinian Authority) “to prevent Israelis from seeing what was going on.” EAPPI also partners with groups like B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence. B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, has repeatedly spread inaccurate information and statistics.  Breaking the Silence is an organization made up of IDF veterans who have “taken it upon themselves to expose to the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories.” While comprising less than .005% of the IDF’s combat forces, the organization demonizes Israel by spreading inaccurate narratives of the IDF.

Not surprisingly, Jewish communities have found that EAPPI volunteers have inflamed antisemitism. In 2012, the UK Jewish Board of Deputies president Vivian Wineman said, “members of Jewish communities across the country have suffered harassment and abuse at EAPPI meetings.” She also said that the EAPPI “helped to create a climate of hostility towards Israel within the Church of England.”

 

In response to The Jerusalem Post, WCC Commission of the Churches on International Affairs Director Peter Prove said that the WCC “does not countenance equating Israel to Nazi Germany, neither in the training of participants in the EAPPI nor otherwise.” He also said, “Since its founding Assembly in 1948 the WCC has denounced antisemitism as a sin against God and humanity, and we strongly maintain that position.” The WCC also stated that the organization “does not promote boycotts based on nationality in this or any other context. Nor does WCC promote economic measures against Israel. It does however have a longstanding policy in favor of boycotting goods and services from the settlements.”

 

EAPPI receives funding from many foreign governments, including those that have signed onto the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. For example, the British Church NGO CAFOD, which has received funding from the EU, UK and Ireland, gave EAPPI GBP 25,000 last year alone. DanChurchAid of Denmark, which receives funding from Denmark and the EU, has pledged $328,995 to EAPPI in 2017-2019. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Finland also support church organizations that fund EAPPI. UNICEF has also been involved in funding EAPPI.

 

The NGO Monitor has stated that “EAPPI misuse tourist visas to enter Israel, where the group has no legal status. They are hosted in Jerusalem by a WCC affiliate, the Jerusalem Interchurch Center (JIC). Notably, the head of JIC, Yusuf Dahar, is one of the authors of the Kairos Palestine Document, which legitimizes terror, embraces anti-Jewish theology and rejects Jewish history. Similar views have been expressed by a number of WCC officials.” NGO Monitor’s president Gerald Steinberg also said that their research “highlights EAPPI’s radical agenda, which, rather than advancing or defending human rights, is a platform for conflict and anti-Semitism.” He also believes that the WCC should adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which would force them to hold themselves accountable.

 

On January 30th, the WCC announced that it would pull its “ecumenical accompaniers” from the city of Hebron for “security concerns.” Within recent months, members of Im Tirtzu, a Zionist non-governmental organization in Israel, have been filming EAPPI activities in Hebron. WCC general secretary Rev. Dr. Tveit said that this “intensified harassment of WCC’s programme” caused it to pull the accompaniers, since “the WCC accompaniers are currently prevented from fulfilling their role as peaceful protective presence for residents in Hebron.” CEO of Im Tirtzu Matan Pelege said that “we are pleased to see that foreign government-funded delegitimating organizations are beginning to leave Hebron.” WCC’s announcement followed Israel’s decision to end the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH), a 22-year-old observer mission in the city that had previously operated under an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

The Swiss government has announced that they will examine recent reports by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) that materials found in the Palestinian school curriculum promote violence, anti-Semitism, and undermine a two-state solution. A spokeswoman for the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs said, “School materials that run contrary to the spirit of a two-state solution, which glorify violence, which fuel racism and anti-Semitism or trivialize violations of international law and human rights are not in compliance with the Swiss position on the Middle East. Switzerland will examine reports such as those by IMPACT-se and discuss them with other donor nations.”

 

Last year, IMPACT-se released a report that examined textbooks used by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). 1st through 12th grade textbooks published for the 2017-2018 academic year, taught in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, were found to encourage hatred, violence, and anti-Semitism. Overall, “the new textbooks examined in this report indoctrinate for death and martyrdom. Jews and Israelis are portrayed as quintessentially evil, amid calls for jihad and martyrdom by Palestinian children.” There is no distinction made between Jews and Israelis. Jews are referred to as “enemies of Islam” and are blamed for poisoning the Prophet Muhammad.

 

These textbooks also honor Palestinian terrorists, such as Dalal Mughrabi. Mughrabi participated in the 1978 Costal Road massacre, which led to the death of 38 people, 13 of whom were children. Her photograph was featured in a 5th grade Arabic textbook and the passages states that “her struggle portrays challenge and heroism, making her memory immortal in our hearts and minds. [She] irrigated the land of Palestine with her pure blood; to create a flourishing revolutionary history that will never calm down.”Additionally, the 1972 Munich massacre was referred to as “Palestinian resistance” in an 11th grade history textbook.

 

When the initial report came out, IMPACT-se’s CEO Marcus Sheff pledged that they would share their findings with donor states to the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education, such as the Swiss. Sheff has welcomed the Swiss government’s decision, saying that the funding makes the country “complicit in the radicalization of 450,000 Palestinian schoolchildren in UNRWA schools. It is hard to believe that after having read the material and seen the examples, the Swiss government will willfully continue to financially support the teaching of a curriculum that espouses antisemitism, hate and violence.”

 

The Swiss are not the first to look into Palestinian educational materials. The European Union has already taken steps to prevent aid to the PA from financing educational materials that are found to be discriminatory. Additionally, the United Kingdom and Finland are also conducting their own investigations into Palestinian educational materials. Belgium has also severed ties with the PA’s Education Ministry after it was discovered that one of the schools they provided aid for was named after Mughrabi. Of course, the fact that the United States cut all foreign aid to the UNRWA last year has brought heightened attention to the deeply flawed refugee agency.

 

Switzerland’s Foreign Affairs Minister Ignazio Cassis has previously criticized UNRWA, saying that the organization helps “keep the conflict alive.” Additionally, after a trip to Jordan, he said that Palestinian refugees are really “third-generation families who live not in actual camps but in cities,” and that most of them hold a Jordanian passport. In his view, it is absolutely “unrealistic” that five million Palestinians will return to Israel, “but the UNRWA maintains this hope.” Ultimately, the UNRWA “has become part of the problem. It provides the ammunition to continue the conflict.”

In a letter organized by the AMCHA Initiative, 69 organizations, including the Brandeis Center, urged the Department of Education to ensure that National Resource Center (NRC) faculty do not implement academic boycotts at universities. The letter, addressed to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, gave two examples of recent events held at the University of Michigan and New York University, both of which were organized and funded by Department of Education-designated Middle East Studies NRCs.

 

The letter notes that NRCs “were established by Title VI of the Higher Education Act in order to equip university students and faculty with a full and unbiased understanding of regions and countries vital to U.S. security. The federal legislation providing these NRCs with millions of taxpayer dollars stipulates that the funding is specifically intended ‘to promote access to research and training overseas, including through linkages with overseas institutions.”

 

An academic boycott, however, as the letter points out, calls for the exact opposite:

it seeks to deny access to research, training and education in and about the targeted country, and to break linkages with the targeted country’s educational institutions. And while faculty members certainly have the right to express support for BDS, including an academic boycott of Israel, were these NRC directors or any of their fellow faculty to implement the academic boycott at their centers in such a way as to restrict or limit the academic opportunities of their students or colleagues, their behavior would contravene the explicitly stated purpose of their federal funding.

 

The official guidelines of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) encourage faculty to “work toward shutting down study abroad programs in Israel and refuse to write recommendations for students who want to attend them; scuttle their colleagues’ research collaborations with Israeli universities and scholars; and cancel or shut down educational events organized by students or faculty featuring Israeli leaders or scholars, or that seek to ‘normalize’ Israel by presenting it in anything but a negative light.” Any NRC that adheres to these boycott strategies would be in violation of their federal funding requirements.

 

Overall, six of the 15 Middle East Studies NRCs have directors who have expressed public support for the academic boycott against Israel, and two others have directors who have called to shut down their university’s study abroad program in Israel. Additionally, all but one of the 15 NRCs have faculty members who support the academic boycott of Israel.

 

Supporting the academic boycott of Israel does not necessarily mean that the NRC directors or faculty will fulfill the PACBI guidelines for a boycott. However, six NRC directors signed a letter in 2014 that stated, “we pledge not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions.” Studies in 2016 and 2017 have shown that pro-BDS directors and faculty members are more likely to host events that either promote the BDS movement or host BDS speakers.

 

When applying for Title VI HEOA grant applications, these pro-BDS directors have stated that their programs offer educational and research opportunities to study in and about Israel, as well as linkages with Israeli institutions. The letter notes, “Were these same directors to implement the academic boycott they publicly espouse, they would be working to subvert the very opportunities and linkages they have promised their programs would provide, which would constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation of their programs on a federal grant application.”

 

The signatories to the letter emphasize that they “do not intend in any way to impede or suppress a faculty member’s freedom of speech or right to engage in a personal boycott. But were a faculty member to take steps to obstruct or prevent others from accessing opportunities to engage with overseas institutions through research or training, it would clearly violate the stated purpose of the law.”

 

The 69 organizations offered the following recommendations to the Department of Education to address this problem:

  • The Department of Education should issue a statement warning NRC directors and affiliated faculty that implementing an academic boycott of one of the countries in the NRC’s purview would be a direct subversion of the stated purpose of Title VI funding.
  • Area studies program directors applying for or renewing NRC or FLAS funding should be required to sign a statement affirming that neither they nor any of their program’s affiliated faculty will, as part of their academic responsibilities, implement an academic boycott of any of the countries within the purview of their program in such a way as to restrict or limit the academic opportunities of their students or colleagues.

Pitzer College President Melvin Oliver, Courtesy of Pitzer College

On November 29th, Pitzer College President Melvin Oliver condemned the resolution passed by the school’s faculty to suspend the college’s study abroad program at the University of Haifa in a speech before the Pitzer College Council. The College Council was the next stop for the adoption of the resolution, and Oliver took a strong stance against it.

In his speech, President Oliver said that he found arguments supporting the resolution to “show little or no consideration for our educational objectives and mission” and stated that:

To deny Pitzer students who want to study at Haifa University the opportunity to study abroad and to enter into dialogue and promote intercultural understanding at the altar of political considerations is anathema to Pitzer’s core values. If the suspension of the Haifa University program becomes a reality, this will be paltry support for the cause of Palestinian rights and a major blow to the reputation and reality of Pitzer College as a scholarly institution committed to its stated values of intercultural understanding and the ability of students to pursue their vision of educational engagement.

He also pointed out the fact that Israel was unfairly targeted and singled-out, since the college continues to have relationships with and support study abroad programs in countries like China, which engage in “significant human right’s abuses.”

The faculty’s resolution garnered severe backlash from students and outside organizations alike. The Brandeis Center joined a letter, organized by the AMCHA Initiative and signed by 75 civil rights, education, and student organizations expressing dismay over the Pitzer Faculty’s vote. The letter stated that:

The Pitzer Faculty’s attempt to implement an academic boycott of Israel that subverts the educational opportunities and academic freedom of their own students and colleagues, is reprehensible. Pitzer faculty members have abrogated their most basic professional responsibility – to promote the academic welfare of their students. It is important to understand that calling to shut down a study abroad program is expressly part of an the implementation of an academic boycott, and in full compliance with the 2014 guidelines of the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). While portrayed as an effort aimed at Israeli universities and scholars, in reality the implementation of an academic boycott will violate the rights of, and directly harm, students and faculty on U.S. campuses.

Indeed, PACBI calls for faculty members to: work to close their own university’s study abroad programs in Israel; impede a fellow faculty member’s collaborative research or teaching projects with Israeli universities and scholars; interfere with the equal non-discriminatory treatment of applicants to graduate programs; cancel, disrupt or shut down events that feature Israelis; and refuse to write letters of recommendation to students who want to study abroad in Israel.

The letter called on President Oliver to issue a “statement that condemns this Pitzer Faculty action and commits to ensuring that no Pitzer student will be impeded from studying about or in Israel.” Fortunately, he did just that when he spoke before the College Council. The 75 organizations have since thanked him for his efforts, saying that they “deeply appreciate your standing up for the academic rights of all Pitzer students, including those who want to travel to or study about Israel. As you rightly point out, sacrificing students’ educational opportunities on ‘the altar of political considerations’ would be ‘anathema to Pitzer’s core values.’”

On November 8th, the Pitzer College faculty passed two separate resolutions, both of which concerned the university’s relationship with Israel. The more concerning of the two was the faculty’s vote to suspend the school’s study abroad program at the University of Haifa in Israel. The faculty’s resolution called for the “suspension of the College’s exchange with Haifa University, until (a) the Israeli state ends its restrictions on entry to Israel based on ancestry and/or political speech and (b) the Israeli state adopts policies granting visas for exchanges to Palestinian universities on a fully equal basis as it does to Israeli universities.” This resolution has received significant backlash from students and community members.

 

The Pitzer Student Senate will vote on a resolution on November 29th, which condemns the actions of the faculty for not consulting with the student representatives and for promoting their own “political agenda at the expense of students.” The faculty’s decision to suspend the program, according to the student resolution, “eliminates student learning opportunities,” singles out an Israeli institution, and does not apply the same standards of review that are applied to other study abroad programs. The resolution also points out the fact that “the faculty are not linked to any quantifiable nor intangible positive or negative consequence of either the suspension or prolongation” of the program. In other words, students are the ones who are impacted by the decision to suspend the program.

 

Pitzer Voices for Academic Freedom, a group of “strong supporters of free speech and academic freedom on campus,” has started a petition supporting the Haifa study abroad program. The petition urges the Student Senate to adopt the resolution condemning the faculty’s action, issue a statement supporting the study abroad program, and “convene a campus-wide committee consisting of students, staff and faculty, tasked with ensuring that the shared governance model is practiced in a fair and transparent manner across all corners of Pitzer College.” Additionally, the AMCHA Initiative started a petition, urging Pitzer College President Melvin L. Oliver to endorse the “University Leaders Statement Against the Implementation of an Academic Boycott of Israel.”

 

The next stop for this resolution will be the College Council, where it will be voted on by faculty and student delegates sometime in January. Daniel Segal, the professor who introduced the resolution, expects the Council’s vote to be binding, saying “I do not think there has been a single time when College Council has made a curricular decision that is clearly within their purview that has not then become policy.” Pitzer spokeswoman Anna Chang has confirmed that the Haifa program is not currently suspended, but that the college administration is declining to comment on the matter at the moment. She said, “The college community of students, faculty and staff are deliberating the issue through Pitzer’s shared governance process. The college do not plan to release any formal statements until the process is completed.”

 

The Pitzer College Faculty also passed a second resolution on November 8th, which was a dissension from the decision by the Board of Trustees and President Oliver in June to nullify the Student Senate’s passage of a budget amendment endorsing BDS. This is yet another way the faculty has shown support for the BDS movement. The resolution, also introduced by Professor Segal, stated, “Independent of agreeing or disagreeing with that resolution, we the Faculty object to the president and trustees singling out this one issue as a basis for not accepting the Senate’s longstanding autonomy in controlling its funds, in the context of Pitzer’s governance system.” The initial BDS resolution was passed by the Student Senate over Passover, when Jewish students who would have voted against it were off campus, and singled out Israeli companies like Caterpillar, SodaStream, Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories, Hewlett-Packard, and Sabra to boycott.

 

Pitzer is not the first school to have faculty members go rouge with their support for the BDS movement. For example, faculty at University of Michigan have recently come under fire for refusing to write letters of recommendation for students who want to study abroad in Israel.

On November 15th, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed an anti-BDS executive order into law, making the State of Kentucky the 26th state to enact a law against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement. The executive order denounces the BDS movement for being discriminatory, highlights Kentucky’s strong trade relationship with Israel, and points out the fact that governors from all 50 states (and the mayor of DC) have signed a statement against the BDS movement.

 

The executive order declares that governmental bodies are not allowed to enter into a contract with a contractor “unless the contract includes a representation by the contractor that the contractor is not currently engaged in, and will not for the duration of the contract engage in, the boycott of a person or an entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with which Kentucky can enjoy open trade.” Additionally, governmental bodies can terminate their contracts if they find that the contractor lied about their engagement with boycotts.

 

Bevin signed the executive order at the Kentucky Capitol, with Israeli Ambassador Rom Dermer and Consul General of Israel to the Southeast United States Judith Varnai Shorer in attendance. Upon signing the order, he said, “We will not allow state resources to benefit entities that intentionally engage in discriminatory practices to harm the sovereignty and economic prosperity of any ally nation. Today’s executive order makes it clear that Kentucky condemns the BDS movement and that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our friend, Israel.”

 

This is not the first time the state government has taken an anti-BDS stance. In 2016, the Kentucky House of Representatives adopted a resolution that declared their opposition to the BDS movement. Kentucky follows in the footsteps of other states, like Louisiana, Wisconsin, Maryland, and 22 others who have adopted anti-BDS legislation.

The Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) foundation, a leading left-wing think tank for the German Social Democratic Party, withdrew its Human Rights Award to the Women’s March USA while it investigates allegations of anti-Semitism. The decision to award the Women’s March faced much criticism, including from doctoral students associated with FES who “accused the organizers of the march of hardcore antisemitism and support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign targeting the Jewish state.” The award ceremony, which was supposed to be held on November 12, was suspended, since “the FES is unable to assess with certainty the validity of the charges against individual members of the organization’s leadership.”

The Human Rights Award is typically awarded to “individuals and organizations in different parts of the world that have made outstanding contributions in the field of human rights.” Their decision to honor the Women’s March was based on the “the organization’s outstanding commitment to social justice, democracy, and gender equality, as well as its ability to mobilize people around the world.” However, members of the Working Group of Scholarship Holders of the FES, “Critique of Antisemitism and Jewish Studies,” criticized the decision to honor the Women’s March, saying that it “does not meet the criteria of this award, as its organizers have repeatedly attracted attention through antisemitic statements, the trivialization of antisemitism and the exclusion of Zionists and Jews since Women’s March USA’s establishment in 2017. Women’s March USA does not constitute an inclusive alliance.”

Their letter went on to state that:

“Since its inception in 2017, Women’s March USA has attracted media attention due to the antisemitism of its board members and chair women. Linda Sarsour, a member of the board and former president of Women’s March USA, is notorious for her propagation of antisemitism toward Israel. This transpired not only through her statement from March 2017 claiming that feminists could not be Zionists simultaneously and that Zionists were Nazis, but also through her demonization and delegitimization of Israel, as well as the application of a double standard. She also calls herself a ‘very staunch supporter of the BDS movement.’ These forms of antisemitism were also visible at the Berlin Women’s March in January 2018. The organizers did not show any attempt of critique or disassociation.”

The academics also pointed out that Sarsour “spreads anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that resemble the classic anti-Semitic trope of blood libel. In September 2018, for instance, she claimed that when US police officers shoot unarmed black people, Jewish persons responsible would lurk in the background.” Ultimately, “An organization that may support feminism, but discriminates against Jews and Zionists and denies Israel’s right to exist should not be honored by a democratic foundation that advocates diversity and speaks out against discrimination.”

While Jewish groups have long claimed that Sarsour and other leaders of the Women’s March have engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric, it seems that others are now calling out the anti-Semitic sentiment found within the movement. Actresses Alyssa Milano and Debra Messing have recently come out against the Women’s March, demanding that the Women’s March leaders denounce anti-Semitism. Milano, who is an advocate for the #MeToo movement and spoke at the 2018 Women’s March, said she will refuse to speak at the next march if asked by Sarsour or Tamika Mallory. Both Sarsour and Mallory have defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s bigoted anti-Semitism. Farrakhan is infamous for pushing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, such as Jews having control over the government or being involved in the 9/11 attacks. He frequently refers to “satanic Jews” in his speeches and recently tweeted: “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.” Milano said, “Any time that there is any bigotry or anti-Semitism in that respect, it needs to be called out and addressed. I’m disappointed in the leadership of the Women’s March that they haven’t done it adequately.”

On October 31st, UCLA’s Administrative Vice Chancellor Michael Beck sent a cease-and-desist letter to National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) over the logo used in their promotional material. NSJP had created a logo for their upcoming annual conference that featured the UCLA Bruin Bear playing with a Palestinian kite. That same day, the Jewish Journal had publicized the fact that NSJP was using the logo.

 

Beck said, “Taken as a whole, these uses claim, suggest, or imply an affiliation with or an endorsement by UCLA of NSJP and/or its annual conference, which is simply incorrect.” The letter demands that NSJP stop using their logo and only reference the university when referring to where the conference is being held. They must also “obtain prior permission from UCLA for any such promotional materials to assure compliance with this restriction.” Additionally, the university prohibits NSJP from using “artistic renditions of the Bruin Bear associated with a Palestinian kite which some may interpret as an intention to endorse violence against Israel … UCLA did not grant permission for this use nor would it permit use of its name in a manner that could imply endorsement of violence.” Beck even provided helpful links to news articles exposing the fact that the Palestinians have been using incendiary kites to harm Israelis and Israeli land.

 

The annual conference, which is set to take place on November 16-18, has sparked major controversy. While the university has now made it clear that they are not endorsing or promoting the conference, many have called for its cancellation. A petition by Stop Anti-Semitism was started last week, calling on UCLA to cancel the conference altogether. The petition highlights how SJP’s founder, Hatem Bazian, has spewed anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate and how SJP members have posted countless anti-Semitic comments online. It also points out the fact that SJP’s previous national conferences have glorified terrorists like Rasmea Odeh and Leila Khaled. If the conference is not canceled, they “call to hold UCLA accountable by investigating it for violation of anti-discrimination laws, its own policies against discrimination as were adopted by the UC Regents, and violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including Anti-Semitism) for federally assisted programs and activities.”

 

The upcoming conference has also prompted students and professors at UCLA to speak out. When hearing of unauthorized logo incident, a chancellor professor at UCLA, Judea Pearl, said, “I have served on the faculty of UCLA for 49 years and I have never thought I would see the day when the symbol of my university would turn into a Hamas recruitment poster. The NSJP Conference reminds us that hate did not stop at Pittsburgh. U.S. campuses, emboldened by our blindness and inaction are now offering racist groups a fertile ground to spawn their venom, test out intimidating tactics, and gain academic legitimacy. The stench of hatred and sounds of incitement to hostilities that will emerge from the NSJP Conference will damage UCLA’s reputation irreparably.” Students have gone before the University of California Board of Regents, demanding that the conference be canceled and highlighting SJP’s support of terror and anti-Semitism.

 

The university gave NSJP until November 5th to confirm that they had complied with instructions and removed their promotional material that implied endorsement by UCLA. On November 5th, NSJP tweeted that the cease-and-desist letter was “discriminatory treatment” and that they are “extensively reviewing our legal rights with our attorneys.” NSJP removed “UCLA” but had not removed the bear or the kite from their advertisement. The cease-and-desist letter ended by threatening to “pursue whatever additional remedies or claims it may have, including cancellation of the event, if NSJP fails to fully comply with the terms of this directive.” Therefore, NSJP’s failure to comply in full could potentially cause the cancelation of the conference.

 

On November 6th, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously in favor of a resolution calling on UCLA to cancel the conference over concerns of anti-Semitism. City councilman Paul Koretz, who introduced the resolution, said, “As we work to increase security at Los Angeles Jewish community institutions in light of the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue massacre, bringing the SJP conference to Los Angeles in which leaders and members exhort to ‘kill all the Jews’ and ‘stuff some Jews in the oven’ is also a significant threat to public safety.”

On September 21st, the Brandeis Center’s President Alyza Lewin and Director of Legal Initiatives Aviva Vogelstein, sent a letter to University of Michigan’s President Dr. Mark D. Schlissel, urging his administration to take further action following a discriminatory incident by a professor. Professor John Cheney-Lippold refused to provide a letter of recommendation to a University of Michigan student upon realizing that she intended to study abroad in Israel.

The university has since disciplined the professor, condemned the actions of a second instructor who refused to provide a letter of recommendation to a student, and created a panel to examine “the intersection between political thought/ideology and faculty members’ responsibilities to students.”Additionally, the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) passed a resolution declaring that faculty should base their decision to write letters of recommendation on a student’s merit.

Professor Cheney-Lippold, who had previously agreed to write a letter of recommendation for the student claimed that “many university departments have pledged an academic boycott against Israel in support of Palestinians living in Palestine. This boycott includes writing letters of recommendation for students planning to study there … for reasons of these politics, I must rescind my offer to write your letter.”

University of Michigan has previously condemned academic boycotts. In 2013, the University President, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Provost released a statement regarding BDS, stating that “The University of Michigan strongly opposes the boycott of academic institutions in Israel.” In 2017, members of the university’s governing Board of Regents stated, “we strongly oppose any action involving the boycott, divestment or sanction of Israel.”

On September 18th, President Schlissel released a statement condemning the professor’s actions, saying:

“Injecting personal politics into a decision regarding support for our students is counter to our values and expectations as an institution. The academic goals of our students are of paramount importance. It is the university’s position to take all steps necessary to make sure our students are supported … While members of the University of Michigan community have a wide range of individual opinions on this and many other topics, the university has consistently opposed any boycott of Israeli institutions of higher education. No academic department or any other unit at the University of Michigan has taken a stance that departs from this long-held university position.”

On September 20th, he followed up by saying that “The Regents, Executive Officers and I have been deeply engaged in this matter. We will be taking appropriate steps to address this issue and the broader questions it has raised.”

In their letter, the Brandeis Center pointed out the fact that the professor’s refusal to write the letter of recommendation, solely based of his political views, violates the University’s Faculty Handbook, which declares that it is “an open and accepting community” where differences based on a multitude of factors are “welcomed, nurtured, and respected.”

Additionally, the professor’s conduct violates the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Michigan, and potentially violates state and federal anti-boycott law:

“The professor is surely aware that most of the students at the University of Michigan who choose to continue academically at a university in Israel are Jewish. Hence, regardless of his personal intent – which was, we believe, contrary to federal and state anti-boycott laws – the necessary effect of the professor’s refusal to write a letter of recommendation for any student seeking to study in Israel is to prejudice Jewish students at the University of Michigan. The United States Supreme Court has declared that discrimination is illegal and unconstitutional regardless of personal intent if it has a ‘disparate impact’ based on race or religion. E.g., Texas Dep’t of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2521-2522 (2015). The professor’s public declaration plainly has a “disparate impact” on Jewish students at the University.”

Furthermore, if a hostile campus climate develops for Jewish or Israeli students, the University risks violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs against anyone on the basis of their race, color, or national origin. In 2004, the Marcus Policy extended Title VI protection to Jewish students based on shared ethnic or ancestral characteristics. As the letter points out:

“Harassment rises to the level of a ‘hostile environment’ when the conduct is ‘sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or opportunities offered by a school district.’ Jewish students have a proclivity to study in Israel due to the Jewish historic and spiritual connection to ‘Zion’/ the Land of Israel.”

Therefore, “If these students are denied letters of recommendation, they are denied the services and opportunities provided by the university – which by definition amounts to a hostile environment.”

On September 24th, the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) passed a resolution declaring that faculty should only base their decision to write letters of recommendation on a student’s merit, not their political beliefs. While the Brandeis Center was pleased to learn of the resolution issued by the faculty senate, the Brandeis Center recommended, as listed in their letter, that President Schlissel reiterate his position on the professor’s actions, direct the professor to write a letter of recommendation for the student, discipline him if he is found to have violated school policies, and make it clear to all professors that such conduct could lead to disciplinary action. Additionally, the university should provide “mandatory training and education to all faculty members on how anti-Semitism is often manifested as anti-Zionism, and make it clear to the university community that anti-Jewish discrimination will not be tolerated on campus, just like other forms of racial and religious hate have no place at the university.”

The University of Michigan has now disciplined Professor Cheney-Lippold. A letter from Elizabeth Cole, interim dean of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and details the discipline Professor Cheney-Lippold will receive. According to the October 3rd letter, he will not receive a merit raise during this 2018-2019 school year. He will also not be allowed to go on his upcoming sabbatical in January or another sabbatical for two years. If he is found guilty of similar conduct in the future, he could also face dismissal.

Additionally, Cole expressed disapproval of his actions, saying, “Your conduct has fallen far short of the University’s and College’s expectations for how LSA faculty interact with and treat students. This letter is a strong warning that your behavior in this circumstance was inappropriate and will not be tolerated … In the future, a student’s merit should be your primary guide for determining how and whether to provide a letter of recommendation. You are not to use student requests for recommendations as a platform to discuss your personal political beliefs.”

On October 9th, it was discovered that a second instructor at the university had declined to provide a letter of recommendation for a student. When a half-Israeli student asked his graduate student instructor, Lucy Peterson, for a letter of recommendation, she said she would “be delighted.” However, after learning that he intended to study in Israel, she informed him that she would not write the letter. In an email that echoes that of Professor Cheney-Lippold, she said, “I’m so sorry that I didn’t ask before agreeing to write your recommendation letter, but I regrettably will not be able to write on your behalf. Along with numerous other academics in the US and elsewhere, I have pledged myself to a boycott of Israeli institutions as a way of showing solidarity with Palestine. Please know that this decision is not about you as a student or a person, and I would be happy to write a recommendation for you if you end up applying to other programs.”

That same day, President Schlissel released another statement condemning the actions of both instructors, reiterating the university’s stance on BDS, and announcing the creation of a “panel of distinguished faculty members to examine the intersection between political thought/ideology and faculty members’ responsibilities to students.” The primary objectives of the panel are to examine relevant university policy, gather and review relevant policy statements of peer institutions, gather input from stakeholders across the university, and “to recommend how to clarify current policy or create new policy that clearly articulates institutional principles and expectations at the intersection of faculty members’ responsibilities to students and their personal views.” He added:

“Withholding letters of recommendation based on personal views does not meet our university’s expectations for supporting the academic aspirations of our students. Conduct that violates this expectation and harms students will not be tolerated and will be addressed with serious consequences. Such actions interfere with our students’ opportunities, violate their academic freedom and betray our university’s educational mission … We will work to make absolutely clear that faculty members’ personal political beliefs cannot interfere with their obligations to our students with regard to letter-writing and all other modes of academic support.”