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.”

On October 2nd, four members of the anti-Semitic Rise Above Movement were arrested after being charged with conspiracy and incitement of a riot and participating in attacks against counter-protesters at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally last year. The defendants, who are currently in custody in California, each face up to 10 years in prison.

A federal arrest affidavit claims that the defendants were “among the most violent individuals present in Charlottesville,” citing photos and video footage as evidence that they attacked counter-protesters during the rally. Government investigators were able to place these men at the rally using social media posts and bank records. They are believed to have traveled to Virginia for the white nationalist rally held on August 12, 2017 with the “intent to encourage, promote, incite, participate in, and commit violent acts in furtherance of a riot.” US Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Thomas Cullen said that “with their hands taped and ready to do street battle,” the four “committed multiple acts of violence, including punching, kicking, head-butting and pushing numerous people.”

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the Rise Above Movement is “a white supremacist group based in Southern California whose members believe they are fighting against a ‘modern world’ corrupted by the ‘destructive cultural influences’ of liberals, Jews, Muslims and non-white immigrants. They refer to themselves as the ‘premier MMA (mixed martial arts) club of the Alt-Right.’”

Instead of charging them under a hate crimes statute, officials elected to charge each defendant with violating the federal riots statue and with conspiracy to violate the riots statute. According to Virginia Code §18.2-408, “Any person who conspired with others to cause or produce a riot, or directs, incites, or solicits other persons who participate in a riot to acts of force of violence, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.” US Attorney Cullen said that officials were “more comfortable that the riot act was a better fit,” primarily because they would not have to ascribe motivations to their actions. However, it is possible that additional charges will be added in the future.

While these men participated in the Charlottesville rally, the affidavit also claims they had taken part in “acts of violence” at rallies in Huntington Beach and Berkley, California. US Attorney Cullen said, “These guys came to Charlottesville in order to commit violent acts, and it wasn’t the first time they’d done it.”

Courtesy of Dagbladet

On August 7th, a Norwegian newspaper, Dagbladet, published an extremely anti-Semitic cartoon, prompting Israel’s ambassador to Norway to demand the removal of the image and apologize. The cartoon depicts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose body is in the shape of a swastika, punching a Druze Israeli off of a “whites only” bench.

The cartoon was published in response to Israel’s recent passage of a new Jewish Nation-State law, which some have criticized for being discriminatory towards minority groups. While thousands of Druze Israelis protested the new law on August 4th in Tel Aviv, others, like head of the Druze Zionist Council Atta Farhat, have said that the new law does not affect their community. He said, “You should know that the nation-state law does not deprive us in the least; most importantly, it enshrines in law the indisputable fact that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.” Regardless, the cartoon published in Dagbladet is not simply an expression of legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. Instead, the paper crossed a line, equating Israel with Nazism and white supremacy. Ambassador Raphael Schutz tweeted that the cartoon was “an example of the most repulsive imaginable #antisemitic imagery.”

This is not the first time that Dagbladet has been accused of anti-Semitism, as they have previously published cartoons that equate Israel to Nazi Germany and North Korea. Additionally, they have published cartoons that demonize circumcision and equate it with pedophilia. Dagbladet has consistently refused to apologize for their blatant anti-Semitism.

With the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe, news outlets should not be adding fuel to the fire. Modern anti-Semitism frequently takes on the form of anti-Zionism, thereby masking Jew-hatred as acceptable political speech. However, this trend is extremely detrimental, as it allows for blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric, imagery, and actions to run rampant.

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) has successfully forced Kuwait Airways to “pay substantial damages plus costs to an Israeli National who was refused a ticket on a Kuwait Airways flight from London to Bangkok on the grounds of her nationality.” Last November, Mandy Blumenthal, who holds Israeli and UK citizenship, attempted to buy a ticket at Heathrow Airport, but the Kuwait Airways ticket counter denied her request, saying, “Israeli passport holders are not permitted to travel on Kuwait Airways.” UKLFI helped Blumenthal sue the airline after the incident, which was caught on video.

Kuwaiti law prohibits the airline from engaging in any commercial transactions with “entities or persons residing in Israel, or with Israeli citizenship.” The Lawfare Project has also brought attention to this discriminatory practice, bringing legal actions against the airline in multiple countries. In 2015, US Department of Transportation demanded that it stop barring Israelis from their flights. Instead of allowing Israeli citizens on their planes, the airline terminated their New York-London route. In 2016, the airline canceled their intra-European flights after the Lawfare Project took them to court in Switzerland. Their lawsuit in Germany was unfortunately not successful, as the court ruled that the airline had a right to bar Israelis from their flights, as it was “not reasonable” to demand that they violate Kuwaiti law. An appeal hearing is scheduled to take place in September.

According to British law, it is unlawful to refuse a public service to an individual because of their nationality. Blumenthal found it unacceptable that she was denied service while on UK soil. Attorney David Berens said, “The law is clear: direct discrimination on grounds of nationality in the provision of a service to the public is illegal. Ms. Blumenthal has done a service in showing up Kuwait Airways’ illegal policy. Kuwait Airways is now legally obliged to end this policy or end its services from the UK altogether.” While Kuwait Airways has agreed to pay Blumenthal, they have not admitted liability.

Blumenthal said, “It is horrible to be singled out, to be told you are not allowed to do something because of who you are. Having someone telling me that he is following instructions, that it is a rule, a policy gave me a sinking feeling inside. In my mind it is an antisemitic policy to single out the only Jewish State to boycott.”

Courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

In an interview with the Associated Press on August 13th, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad claimed that “Anti-Semitic is a term that is invented to prevent people from criticizing the Jews for doing wrong things.” Prime Minister Mohamad, a proud anti-Semite, explained that “There is one race that cannot be criticized. If you are antisemitic, it seems almost as if you are a criminal. When somebody does wrong, I don’t care how big they are. They may be powerful countries but if they do something wrong, I exercise my right of free speech. They criticize me, why can’t I criticize them?”

 

Prime Minister Mohammad has a long history of anti-Semitism. In 1970, he wrote “the Jews are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively.”In 2003, at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit in Kuala Lumpur, he said, “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counterattack. We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. Jews rule this world by proxy.”

 

He is fully aware of his anti-Semitism, as he has also said, “I am glad to be labeled anti-Semitic … How can I be otherwise, when the Jews who so often talk of the horrors they suffered during the Holocaust show the same Nazi cruelty and hard-heartedness towards not just their enemies but even towards their allies should any try to stop the senseless killing of their Palestinian enemies.” While he may claim to be a champion of the Palestinian cause, his rhetoric goes far beyond what could be considered political speech or criticism of Israeli policy. Engaging in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jewish world domination, spreading anti-Semitic stereotypes, equating Israelis with Nazis, and promoting the annihilation of the Jews all count as blatant anti-Semitism.

On August 1st, the Brandeis Center’s President Alyza Lewin and Director of Legal Initiatives Aviva Vogelstein sent a letter to Stanford University President, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, urging him to address a threatening, anti-Semitic Facebook post by a current Stanford student who was scheduled to be a Resident Assistant (RA) this upcoming year. After mounting pressure and extensive concern expressed for the safety of Jewish and pro-Israel students on campus, the student stepped down from his RA position on August 3rd and the university issued a public statement.

On July 20th, a rising third-year student and former student senator posted on his Facebook page the following:

im gonna physically fight zionists on campus next year if someone comes at me with their ‘Israel is democracy bullshit’ : ) and after i abolish your ass i’ll go ahead and work every day for the rest of my life to abolish your petty ass ethnosupremacist settler-colonial state

He provided a link to a Haaretz article titled, “Jewish Nation-state Law Makes Discrimination in Israel Constitutional.” Though the student ultimately edited his posting to say that he wanted to “intellectually fight Zionists,” the Brandeis Center letter points out how “[t]his after-the-fact modification does not erase the impact of his initial conduct. Violence was threatened against other Stanford students. With his post, [this student] revealed his instinctive response when confronted with views of Israel with which he disagrees.”

The letter also details how the student’s threatening message contained anti-Semitic and discriminatory tropes. According to the U.S. Department of State’s Definition of Anti-Semitism, denying Israel’s right to exist is an example of anti-Semitism. The student’s call to “abolish” Israel is, therefore, anti-Semitic. Additionally, the letter notes that the posting violates Stanford’s Fundamental Standard, which states that “Students are expected to respect and uphold the rights and dignity of others regardless of race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic status.” If students violate this policy, they may be disciplined for misconduct.

The Brandeis Center letter expresses concern over the student serving as an RA, considering the fact that he would be responsible for other students, many of whom would potentially feel threatened by his violent views. According to the Stanford Resident Assistant policies, RAs are “expected to create residential environments that enhance student academic progress and success . . . to build inclusive and reflective environments in which differences of background and belief are explored . . . and to encourage student responsibility and accountability.” Additionally, RAs “are expected to: assume a primary leadership role and serve as role models for responsible behavior and personal integrity; exercise good judgment. . .” and “are responsible for creating a residential environment in which all views (popular and unpopular) can be voiced, heard respectfully, and fully explored.” The Brandeis Center letter notes that the student failed to meet those requirements and instead created an environment where Jewish and pro-Israel students will not only feel uncomfortable, but also unsafe under his supervision.

In addition to violating university policy, the student’s posting potentially violated Title 11.5 of the California Penal Code, §422, “punishment for threats,” which states:

Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

The Brandeis Center’s letter explains that the student’s threat “to ‘physically fight Zionists,’ and ‘abolish [their] ass’ could reasonably be understood as a threat to do ‘great bodily injury.’ It is a threat that could cause one to fear for his or her own safety.”

Additionally, the letter points out that “Messages that threaten the physical safety of Israeli and Jewish students create a hostile environment for Israeli and Jewish students on campus in violation of Title VI.” The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) extended the protections of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect students from discrimination on the basis of their Jewish ethnicity or ancestry.

The Brandeis Center recommended that the university “Remove [this student] from his RA teaching position and after investigating the situation thoroughly, take such other responsive disciplinary actions as are authorized by Stanford policies and applicable constitutional protections.” Additionally, the Brandeis Center urged the university to issue an official statement on the incident, condemning the posting as being anti-Semitic.

The student, who claims to be a third-generation Palestinian refugee with “trans-generational trauma,” published an op-ed on August 3rd apologizing for his actions. He also said, “I will be stepping down from my job as Resident Assistant at Stanford University to focus my attentions on my studies and on processing the repercussions of my post.”

The university also released a public statement on August 3rd, saying that after following “standard university procedure in cases of possible threat, the university has conducted an extensive  case assessment, and concluded that the student does not pose a physical threat to other members of the community.” This comes after the university received “many expressions of concern for the safety of Jewish students at Stanford.” Interestingly, while the university acknowledged that the Jewish community was greatly affected by the post, it did not condemn it as anti-Semitic.

The following Call for Papers on the changing manifestations of antisemitism, recently received by the Louis D. Brandeis Center, may be of interest to some of our readers:

 

Academic Studies Press (ASP) is currently inviting submissions for the next issue of the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, which is due for publication in Spring 2019.

The Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism focuses on the multiple and changing manifestations of antisemitism in the contemporary world, including but not limited to, antisemitism in the Islamic world, in Europe, on the left and the right of the political spectra, secular antisemitism, antisemitism in the church, and anti-Zionism.

We encourage scholars from all disciplines across the social sciences and humanities to submit 1) an original research article reporting qualitative or quantitative research; 2) a literature review; 3) a conceptual or theoretical article; 4) a commentary; or 5) a book review.

Please submit your manuscript to jca@academicstudiespress.com. The deadline for submissions is October 1, 2018.

Your manuscript should comply with the authors’ guidelines, which may be found at: http://journals.academicstudiespress.com/index.php/JCA/about/submissions#authorGuidelines 

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

The Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, which is one of the few journals exclusively dedicated to the analysis of antisemitism, focuses on the multiple and changing manifestations of antisemitism in the contemporary world. While our interest is in the post-Holocaust era, submissions may include relevant empirical studies dealing with the 19th or early 20th century. Specifically, our focus is on 21st century forms of antisemitism, including but not limited to, antisemitism in the Islamic world, in Europe, on the left and the right of the political spectra, secular antisemitism, antisemitism in the church, and anti-Zionism.

Overseen by an international team of editors, this rigorously peer-reviewed journal aims to provide a forum in which scholars from diverse political and intellectual backgrounds can analyze, debate, and formulate effective responses to the ever-evolving and insidious threat of antisemitism.

ABOUT ACADEMIC STUDIES PRESS

Academic Studies Press is an independent scholarly publisher devoted to advancing knowledge and understanding in the humanities and social sciences, with an emphasis on Jewish Studies and Slavic Studies. Through our outstanding, opinion-leading authors and series editors, we continuously strive to enhance understanding through our monographs and critical companions, improve the accessibility of classic works through our translations, and inspire dialogue through our scholarly commentaries. We champion innovative ideas and new, creative interpretations.

Contact Email: jca@academicstudiespress.com
URL: http://journals.academicstudiespress.com/index.php/JCA/about/submissions

The following Call for Papers on Holocaust testimonies, recently received by the Louis D. Brandeis Center, may be of interest to some of our readers:

The Holocaust Studies Program of Western Galilee College, the USC Shoah Foundation Center for Advanced Genocide Research, University of Southern California, and the Center for Judaic, Holocaust and Peace Studies, Appalachian State University, announce the fifth international interdisciplinary conference and workshop on The Future of Holocaust Testimonies to be held on 11–13 March 2019 in Akko, Israel.

Survivors and their testimonies have been central to Holocaust research and memorial culture, but as fewer and fewer survivors remain among us, we need to consider how and in what forms Holocaust scholarship and the memory of the Holocaust will continue. One critical focus will certainly be the legacy that survivors leave behind in the forms of written, audio, and video testimonies, as well as in the transmission of their testimony to their children and grandchildren, who have their own stories to tell, as well as to researchers. In addition, those who are not survivors or their descendants seem destined to play an increased role in the transmission of the history and memory of the Holocaust.

We welcome proposals for papers on any aspect of the future of Holocaust testimonies, including, but not limited to, the following topics:

  • methodological and theoretical issues
  • “Holocaust testimony”—renewed analysis of conceptualization and meaning of the term
  • limitations and boundaries in the use of Holocaust testimonies
  • testimonies and historical context
  • testimony classification and categorization by profession, occupation, age, gender, place, and time
  • re-reading and reinterpreting early testimonies
  • multiple testimonies by one and the same survivor
  • second- and third-generation testimonies
  • history, memory, and testimony
  • post-memory
  • intergenerational transmission of trauma and resilience
  • how to remember what we did not experience
  • the role of video-testimony in the future
  • film as testimony
  • the responsibilities of the scholar of the Holocaust

Scholarly work on survivor testimony is done today in many academic disciplines including history, literary analysis, linguistics, cultural criticism, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology and sociology. The rich and varied corpus of testimonies requires the collaborative efforts of researchers across disciplines to enable us to hear the voices of survivors articulated through their testimonies.

We aim for the conference to contribute both to Holocaust research and to public discourse. Therefore, one day of the conference will be open to the public, and two days will be for researchers only. The conference will be conducted in English. During the public day, presentations and discussions will be held in English and Hebrew with simultaneous translation.

Please send a one-page proposal and a short CV to: TestimonyConf@wgalil.ac.il. Doctoral candidates, please add a letter of recommendation from your advisor.

Speakers will be provided full hospitality – hotel and meals; travel will not be covered.

Deadline for Submission of Proposals: 5 August 2018

 

For further inquiries, please contact a member of the Steering Committee:

Dr. Boaz Cohen, chair, boazc@wgalil.ac.il

Dr. Miriam Offer, miriamoffer@gmail.com

Holocaust Studies Program, Western Galilee College, Akko

Dr. Wolf Gruner, gruner@usc.edu

Dr. Martha Stroud, mstroud@usc.edu

USC Shoah Foundation Center for Advanced Genocide Research, Los Angeles

Dr. Thomas Pegelow Kaplan, thomaspegelowkaplan@appstate.edu

Dr. Rosemary Horowitz, horowitzr@appstate.edu

Center for Judaic, Holocaust and Peace Studies, Appalachian State University, North Carolina

Last week, the Brandeis Center’s Director of Legal Initiatives Aviva Vogelstein 
sent a letter to Florida State University (FSU) President John Thrasher, urging his administration to address numerous hateful social media postings by FSU students, targeting those who are Jewish, Israeli, or simply pro-Israel. These students, who were affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at FSU, posted blatantly anti-Semitic messages on Twitter and Facebook. Many of these postings referenced old tropes and stereotypes of Jews, while others had more violent messages. Some of these messages included:

  • “Facebook and Yahood [Arabic word for ‘Jew’] – the cause of the worlds problems”;
  • “I hate paying for people and not getting anything in return Jew a** n*ggas”;
  • “Wanna confuse a Jew? Put em in a round room and tell ‘em to find the penny in the corner”

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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. If Jewish students, or other students such as Muslim or Sikh students, are targeted or discriminated against on campus on the basis of their ethnic or ancestral background, any university receiving federal funding – such as FSU – has a duty to prevent the creation of a hostile environment. Additionally, the anti-Semitic postings violate The Seminole Creed’s requirement that FSU students “…show respect for others,” and “…learn from and about those who are different and work to make the University more inclusive.” The postings also violate FSU’s Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Statement which states that “All members of our community will help create a[n]…educational environment that promotes…respect…free from discrimination [and] harassment.”

In its June 8 letter, the Brandeis Center urged FSU President Thrasher to publicly condemn the hateful messages, investigate thoroughly and take responsive actions consistent with FSU policies and applicable constitutional protections, reach out to the targeted students and communities to provide support and resources as needed, and create more programming on the nature and different manifestations of anti-Semitism, and provide extracurricular programming to raise community awareness about global and campus anti-Semitism.

The text of the letter can be found below:

_________

Dear President Thrasher:

We write on behalf of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB), a national public interest advocacy organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. We work to combat campus anti-Semitism, and often work with university administrators nationwide to offer best practices on how to combat and prevent anti- Semitism on their campuses, and write to express concern about the recently reported anti-Semitic social media postings by current and former Florida State University students.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Education reminded us that federal law “protects all students, including Jewish students, from discrimination based on race, color, and national origin (including language and actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics),” and that “schools must take immediate and appropriate action to respond to complaints of discrimination, including harassment . . . .” (See Combating Discrimination Against Jewish Students, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/jewish-factsheet-201701.pdf). Today, we urge you to promptly and properly address this challenge at FSU.

We strongly urge you to publicly condemn the statements as anti-Semitic and take further actions to correct the campus climate for Jewish, Israeli and pro-Israel students. Dozens of social media postings, which we have independently verified, include a mixture of inciting violence against Jews and Israelis and displaying anti-Semitic and racist sentiment. The social media postings include:

  • “I hate paying for people and not getting anything in return Jew a** n*ggas”;
  • “Y do Jews have big noses…Cuz air is free…”;
  • “Burn Israel to the ground”;
  • A photo of two people wearing Keffiyehs seemingly assembling a Molotov cocktail, 
captioned, “Actual goals”;
  • “Wanna confuse a Jew? Put em in a round room and tell ‘em to find the penny in the corner”;
  • “Facebook and Yahood [Arabic word for ‘Jew’] – the cause of the worlds problems”;
  • Referring to a post they tweeted in 2016 at the National Students for Justice in Palestine 
Conference about “f*cking up a Zionist,” a student stated, “I’d f*ck up a Zionist in ’16 
& we’re still doing it in 2018”; and
  • Writing that the FSU Student Body President should “…delete his existence” for 
expressing support for Israel.

We do not dispute the right of students to express themselves, even outrageously or hurtfully. However, we are concerned that the anti-Semitic and discriminatory tropes expressed in these statements and similar statements could create an environment that Israeli students, Jewish students, and other students, will reasonably perceive to be hostile. We urge your administration to exercise its obligation to address the harms that arise when speakers misuse that right in ways that poison the environment and sends a message of exclusion and hate. Such messages are incompatible with The Seminole Creed’s requirement that FSU community members “…show respect for others,” and “…learn from and about those who are different and work to make the University more inclusive,” and federal civil rights law.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal funds. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has announced that Title VI applies to discrimination on the basis of Jewish ethnicity or ancestry in guidance issued in 2004 (see Kenneth L. Marcus, Dear Colleague Letter (Sep. 13, 2004), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/religious-rights2004.html). In 2010, OCR clarified that unlawful harassment need not include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents (see Russlynn Ali, Dear Colleague Letter (Oct. 26, 2010), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html). Speech that invokes anti-Semitic stereotypes against Israelis and Jews, such as the social media messages at issue, can create a hostile environment for Israeli and Jewish students on campus in violation of Title VI.

Further, FSU’s Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Statement holds that, “All members of our community will help create a[n]…educational environment that promotes…respect…free from discrimination [and] harassment.” (See Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Statement, http://www.hr.fsu.edu/PDF/Publications/diversity/EEO_Statement.pdf). Pursuant to that statement, FSU’s “Discrimination Response System” has defined bias as “an act or behavior motivated by the offender(s) pre-formed negative opinion or attitude toward facets of another person(s)’ identity. An incident of bias may occur whether the act is intentional or unintentional. An act of bias may be directed toward an individual or group. Bias may contribute to creating an unsafe, hostile and/or an unwelcoming environment for another person(s). For Florida State University, an incident of bias is an act that violates any of the tenets of The Seminole Creed.” (See Discrimination Response System, https://thecenter.fsu.edu/resources/discrimination-response-system).

We hope that you will seize this as a teachable moment to educate your students about the evils of anti-Semitism and racism and the need to take a firm stand against them, and we recommend the following corrective and preventative actions:

  • Address the harm done to the community by issuing a strong university statement condemning the social media postings and anti-Semitism firmly, promptly, and with specificity, along the lines discussed in “LDB’s Best Practice Guide for Combating Anti- Semitism and Anti-Israelism” (see attached).
  • Investigate the situation thoroughly and take responsive actions consistent with FSU policies and applicable constitutional protections.
  • Reach out to targeted student communities, local community leaders, and experts, including Hillel at FSU, Chabad of Tallahassee & FSU, Noles for Israel, NolePAC, FSU- IAC Mishelanu to offer support and resources as needed.
  • Create more academic, curricular, and other programming on the nature and different manifestations of anti-Semitism (see attached LDB Fact Sheet on the Elements of Anti- Semitism), and provide extracurricular programming to raise community awareness about global and campus anti-Semitism.

In accordance with the directive of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, we ask you to exercise your “ethical moral obligation to act as leaders, and promote the values of respect, tolerance, and inclusiveness on campus,” and to educate your students and faculty “that with freedom of speech comes responsibility.” We urge you to take these actions to remedy the current situation, and lower the likelihood that bigotry or anti-Semitism will recur on your campus. We are available to share our expertise on these issues, and further discuss our recommendations with you, and can be reached at the e-mail addresses listed below, or by phone at (202) 559-9296.

Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Aviva Vogelstein

Director of Legal Initiatives

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

After several BDS resolution fails this semester on campuses like the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), Texas A&M University, and the University of Arkansas, the Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) Senate passed a BDS resolution on Wednesday, May 23rd. The BDS resolution was authored by Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights (SUPER) and passed by a 12-6 vote. Accusing the university of having “been a proponent in funding the business of state-sanctioned violence” against Palestinians, SUPER introduced the anti-Israel resolution a mere week before the vote took place. University of Oregon President Michael Schill immediately clarified that the BDS resolution “contradicts the ASUO mission to support the interests of all students in a diverse community.”

While at least 30 different groups endorsed the BDS resolution (including Decolonizing Judaism, the Muslim Student Association, the Native American Student Union, and the Southeast Asian Student Alliance), the pro-Israel community on campus took action immediately. Impressively, two days before the vote, Ducks for Israel created a petition that ultimately gained over 850 signatures that represented students from over 170 different student organizations on campus. More than 200 students showed up to the senate meeting, where many students voiced their concern over the bill.

With so many students in opposition to the resolution, it would appear that the passage of the BDS resolution would not be representative of the wishes of the student body as a whole. Unfortunately, the bill still passed. Ducks for Israel released a statement saying, “To the ASUO, we will hold you accountable for the many concerns we had that you said would not occur following the BDS resolution. We will not stand idly by when it comes to the safety and inclusion of our students on this campus and we hope you will not either.” QuackPac, another pro-Israel group on campus, also condemned the actions of the ASUO. Additionally, The Oregon Hillel Foundation expressed their dismay over the passage of the resolution.

The BDS resolution misleadingly claims that “BDS is an inclusive, anti-racist human rights movement that is opposed to all forms of discrimination, including anti-semitism and Islamophobia.” The resolution specifically demands that the university divest from the following companies: the Strauss Group, the Osem Group, Hewlett-Packard Company, Ahava, General Electric, Eden Springs, Motorola, Caterpillar, G4S, and Elbit Systems. Additionally, ASUO “will prohibit the purchase of products from Sabra, Tribe, Hewlett-Packard Company, SodaStream, Motorola, Caterpillar, G4S, and Elbit Systems.”

President Schill additionally commended the students on their respectful manner of discussion and debate and touched on the impact BDS has on Jewish students. He said, “Regardless of the relative merits of the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel, it is important that all of us make every effort we can to avoid dividing our community along the lines of ideology, religion or national origin. To many Jewish people, myself included, the BDS movement not only seeks to criticize the policies of the current Israeli government, but also calls into question the very right of the State of the Israel to exist.” Schill’s dismissal of the BDS resolution follows a precedent set by administrations at other schools, like Barnard College and George Washington University, who have been quick to condemn the actions of their student governments.

SUPER and Decolonizing Judaism later released a statement claiming that their promotion of BDS was not anti-Semitic and promised that they would help combat anti-Semitism on campus. While The Oregon Hillel Foundation, who strongly opposed the resolution, expressed appreciation for the statement released by SUPER and Decolonizing Judaism, it is important to note that the concerns many students at UO had about BDS resolutions are valid, as anti-Semitism is frequently masked as anti-Zionism. For example, AMCHA’s Antisemitic Activity Report has shown that anti-Semitic activity increases when anti-Israel and BDS activity is prevalent on campuses. It is for this very reason that the BDS movement is detrimental to the campus environment and the safety of Jewish college students. Actions speak louder than words, and the ASUO has failed their student body, especially the Jewish population on campus, by passing this BDS resolution.