JTA BY BEN SALES SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 5:59 PM — A survey of members of AEPi and AEPhi, the most prominent national Jewish fraternity and sorority, found that large numbers of respondents have experienced antisemitism on campus. The survey also found that about half of respondents have felt the need to hide their Jewish identity on campus or in virtual campus settings. A slim majority said they “are somewhat or very reluctant to share their views on Israel,” according to the survey. The survey was commissioned by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a legal organization that aids Jewish and pro-Israel college students. It was conducted by Mike Cohen of the Cohen Research Group in Washington, D.C. The survey was conducted last April, before the spike in antisemitism in the United States surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict the following month. The survey was made available to all AEPi and AEPhi members nationally, and 1,027 chose to respond — 710 of the 5,158 AEPi students and 317 of 3,310 AEPhi students. It is unclear how representative the respondents are of AEPi and AEPhi as a whole, though Cohen said it was an unusually high response rate. The survey comes amid concern among Jewish organizations, and Jewish campus activists, about marginalization and harassment of Jews on campus. National Jewish groups have long seen college campuses, and particularly the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on campus, as a front in the fight against anti-Jewish bigotry. In the past year, Jewish student activists have organized themselves to fight anti-Zionism and antisemitism online. Those concerns have reached the highest levels of government. Kenneth Marcus, the founder of the Brandeis Center, served as assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights under President Donald Trump. In 2019, Trump signed an executive order mandating “robust” enforcement of civil rights protections for Jews on campus, which included some anti-Israel activity in the definition of antisemitism. The order prompted a series of federal complaints alleging antisemitism at campuses in the U.S., some of which were filed by the Brandeis Center. The survey found that half of AEPi respondents, and two-thirds of AEPhi respondents, had personally been targeted with an antisemitic comment in the 120 days before the survey was taken. Cohen said the higher number of sorority members who experienced antisemitism was due partially to their having been called gendered terms such as “Jewish American Princess.” Roughly a quarter of each group said they heard offensive jokes about Jews. A slightly lower number said they heard people repeat age-old antisemitic stereotypes about Jews being greedy or cheap. Smaller percentages reported hearing offensive statements about Israel, like comparing Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis. More than 60% of students in AEPi and AEPhi said that at some point, they have felt unsafe as Jews on campus or in virtual campus settings. Most of both groups said they’re worried about verbal attacks, and about a third of each group said they’re worried about online harassment or being “marginalized or penalized” by a professor, according to the survey. About one in six respondents feared a physical attack. The survey found that more than 80% of both groups consider other Jews their extended family and are supportive of Israel. A majority of respondents has been to Israel. “These findings ring some pretty consequential alarms, more closely resembling previous dark periods in our history, not the 21st century in the U.S.,” Marcus said in a statement. “They reveal that students for whom being Jewish is a central or important aspect of their identity are feeling increasingly unsafe visibly expressing their Judaism for fear of harassment, social bullying and other anti-Semitic attacks.
— A survey of members of AEPi and AEPhi, the most prominent national Jewish fraternity and sorority, found that large numbers of respondents have experienced antisemitism on campus. The survey also found that about half of respondents have felt the need to hide their Jewish identity on campus or in virtual campus settings. A slim majority said they “are somewhat or very reluctant to share their views on Israel,” according to the survey. The survey was commissioned by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a legal organization that aids Jewish and pro-Israel college students. It was conducted by Mike Cohen of the Cohen Research Group in Washington, D.C. The survey was conducted last April, before the spike in antisemitism in the United States surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict the following month. The survey was made available to all AEPi and AEPhi members nationally, and 1,027 chose to respond — 710 of the 5,158 AEPi students and 317 of 3,310 AEPhi students. It is unclear how representative the respondents are of AEPi and AEPhi as a whole, though Cohen said it was an unusually high response rate. The survey comes amid concern among Jewish organizations, and Jewish campus activists, about marginalization and harassment of Jews on campus. National Jewish groups have long seen college campuses, and particularly the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on campus, as a front in the fight against anti-Jewish bigotry. In the past year, Jewish student activists have organized themselves to fight anti-Zionism and antisemitism online. Those concerns have reached the highest levels of government. Kenneth Marcus, the founder of the Brandeis Center, served as assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights under President Donald Trump. In 2019, Trump signed an executive order mandating “robust” enforcement of civil rights protections for Jews on campus, which included some anti-Israel activity in the definition of antisemitism. The order prompted a series of federal complaints alleging antisemitism at campuses in the U.S., some of which were filed by the Brandeis Center. The survey found that half of AEPi respondents, and two-thirds of AEPhi respondents, had personally been targeted with an antisemitic comment in the 120 days before the survey was taken. Cohen said the higher number of sorority members who experienced antisemitism was due partially to their having been called gendered terms such as “Jewish American Princess.” Roughly a quarter of each group said they heard offensive jokes about Jews. A slightly lower number said they heard people repeat age-old antisemitic stereotypes about Jews being greedy or cheap. Smaller percentages reported hearing offensive statements about Israel, like comparing Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis. More than 60% of students in AEPi and AEPhi said that at some point, they have felt unsafe as Jews on campus or in virtual campus settings. Most of both groups said they’re worried about verbal attacks, and about a third of each group said they’re worried about online harassment or being “marginalized or penalized” by a professor, according to the survey. About one in six respondents feared a physical attack. The survey found that more than 80% of both groups consider other Jews their extended family and are supportive of Israel. A majority of respondents has been to Israel. “These findings ring some pretty consequential alarms, more closely resembling previous dark periods in our history, not the 21st century in the U.S.,” Marcus said in a statement. “They reveal that students for whom being Jewish is a central or important aspect of their identity are feeling increasingly unsafe visibly expressing their Judaism for fear of harassment, social bullying and other anti-Semitic attacks.
Boston Herald By L. RACHEL LERMAN | September 19, 2021 at 12:02 a.m. The U.N. will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the World Conference on Racism at Durban, South Africa, on Sept. 22. Far from scoring a victory against racism, however, the 2001 conference is remembered for a spate of virulent attacks against Jews and Israel — indeed, the United States and at least nine other countries have declined to attend this year’s meeting. The venomous attacks in 2001 spurred governments and scholars to draft a definition of antisemitism that is now embodied in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, which recognizes that antisemitism may include attacks on Israel that demonize or delegitimize the Jewish State. Like other definitions of antisemitism, IHRA defines antisemitism as hatred of Jews, directed at individuals or community facilities, including synagogues. Unlike other definitions, however, IHRA recognizes that, while “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” “targeting … the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity” may well be. This is not to say that all Jews identify with Israel. They do not. By the same token, not all Jews wear kippot or keep kosher. No one denies that attacks on these practices would be antisemitic. Yet attachment to Israel as the Jewish homeland is just as fundamental to the identity of many Jews. Anyone who picks up a Jewish prayer book will see the word Israel and Jerusalem on practically every page. And anyone who has been to a Passover seder has ended the service by saying, “Next year in Jerusalem!” Asking Jews to check their devotion to Israel before they may join an academic circle, or a student council, or a parade celebrating LGBQT pride, is asking them to renounce their Judaism. That is unquestionably antisemitic. Criminalization of the Jewish state and calls to obliterate it are also undeniably antisemitic. The antisemitic violence that erupted during the recent conflict in Gaza proves the point; Jews were attacked on the streets of New York, Los Angeles and other major U.S. cities, as well as across social media, not because of any personal connection between the victims and the State of Israel, but simply because they were Jews. Jews may dispute among themselves the importance of Israel to their Jewish identity, but antisemites outside the fold do not stop to quibble before striking out. Critics of the IHRA definition, however, remarkably continue to deny that anti-Zionism is a contemporary form of antisemitism. For example, the Nexus definition asserts that holding Israel to a “double standard,” or “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries,” “is not prima facie proof of antisemitism.” The Jerusalem Declaration, which continues to hold sway in some academic circles, likewise maintains that a “double standard” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. It goes even further, asserting categorically that proposing to eliminate Israel as the Jewish State, labeling Israel “apartheid” or “settler-colonial(ist),” or supporting the “(b)oycott, divestment and sanction” movement cannot be considered antisemitic. Sympathy for the plight of Palestinians is not, of course, antisemitic. When the Palestinian cause is immutably linked to the elimination of the Jewish State, however, that is another story. Unfortunately, the Jerusalem Declaration tries to accommodate movements that promote that narrative. It also suggests that Israel is racist, apartheid and settler-colonialist, based on “evidence” it fails to identify. And it condones boycotts against Israel, while utterly ignoring BDS’ self-proclaimed goal of annihilating Israel. Omar Barghouti, the founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, makes no bones about it: He and his followers would never accept a Jewish state in the land he calls Palestine. The elimination of the Jewish State cannot in good faith be characterized as “politics” or mere criticism of the Israeli government. Make no mistake, the BDS goal means Jews would once again be exiled from the land of Israel or allowed to stay in their ancestral homeland only if they surrender their independence, sovereignty and (as history shows) their physical security. As a member of the Brandeis Center’s legal team, I encounter examples of antisemitism daily. These incidents make crystal clear that only the IHRA definition succeeds in addressing the full panoply of antisemitic threats that Jews confront today — threats on display in Durban 2001 and in the 20 years since. The competing “definitions” turn a blind eye to reality, endangering the people they purport to protect, while protecting their authors from political fire. L. Rachel Lerman is vice-chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a non-profit that conducts research, education and advocacy to combat the resurgence of antisemitism on college and university campuses.
Sunday, September 19, 20219:00 AM – 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time WATCH LIVE HERE 9/19/2021 WANT REMINDERS? CLICK TO REGISTER SPEAKERS DURBAN DOCUMENTATION DURBAN IV UPDATES
Read the entire Brandeis Brief here. Brandeis Brief: September 2021 Why did Sheila Levin and Dr. Ronald Albucher file their landmark Brandeis Center complaint against Stanford University? The Stanford mental health professionals explain why in this issue of the Brandeis Brief. Kenneth L. Marcus gives that case context in a new review. Also in this issue: the latest on Johns Hopkins University, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, a 25-year old terror funding lawsuit, and the newest member of the Center’s Academic Advisory Board. For those who celebrate, we wish you a healthy and sweet new year. “Why We Filed a Discrimination Complaint Against Stanford” Ronald Albucher and Sheila Levin (The Stanford Daily)Stanford employees Sheila Levin and Dr. Ronald Albucher explain to the school’s student newspaper why they filed a federal harassment complaint against the University. They bring attention to the DEI committee’s failure to address anti-Semitic attacks on campus, such as the vandalism of Stanford’s Memorial Church with swastikas, and the committee’s promotion of harmful anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power. Read More Jewish Advocacy Groups Demand Action From Hopkins Min-Seo Kim (The Johns Hopkins News-Letter)This July, the Brandeis Center teamed up with StandWithUs to joint-author a letter to Johns Hopkins University demanding that the institution make clear its commitment to protecting its Jewish students in light of an instructor’s treatment of Zionist students. In an interview with News-letter, Alyza Lewin explains the implications of this situation, observing that “expressing support for Israel’s existence as a Jewish homeland and expressing pride in the Jewish state for many Jews grows out of their Jewish identity.” Read More Do Jews Count? Kenneth L. Marcus (Commentary)Kenneth L. Marcus explains how Jewish identity is erased in certain progressive circles. In this Commentary piece, Marcus highlights the recent reports of anti-Semitic discrimination at Stanford University and reviews comedian David Baddiel’s book, Jews Don’t Count, describing the complexity of the Jewish ethnic identity and the double standard to which Jews are held in the media, politics, the workplace, and higher education. Read More LDB Fact Sheet on International Humanitarian Law and Asymmetrical Warfare Rachel Lerman, Brandeis BlogLDB recently published an educational fact sheet on asymmetrical warfare. In this fact sheet, we outline the most widely accepted international humanitarian law principles and explore their application in asymmetric conflicts to explain the legal framework governing Israel’s military defense. We list ways in which non-state actors like Hamas regularly violate international humanitarian law and highlight examples of Israel’s commitment to international law principles. This fact sheet adds to LDB’s collection of academic resources and research that can be used to educate and counter ill-informed criticisms of Israel. Read More LDB’s Summer Speaker Series Concludes with a Discussion on “The Legal Battle Against Campus Anti-Semitism”In the latest installment of the Brandeis Center’s summer speaker series, LDB’s own Ken Marcus, Alyza Lewin, and Denise Katz-Prober provide a compelling analysis of how the current political climate on college campuses surrounding Israel negatively affects and actively excludes Jewish students. They provide a detailed history of the adoption of legal statutes defining and combatting anti-Semitism in the U.S. and draw insightful new conclusions about the implications of LDB’s recent cases on Jewish students’ rights. Watch the full event here LDB’s Final Summer Speaker Series Event Family of Slain Teenager Makes Headway in Anti-Terror Lawsuit Melissa Weiss (Jewish Insider)The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a dismissal of the decades-old case concerning the family of David Boim, a teenager who was shot and killed by a Hamas terrorist at a West Bank bus stop in May 1996. The reversal ruling is a major victory for the Boim family. Alyza Lewin, attorney for the Boims for more than 20 years, tells the Jewish Insider, “The Boim legal precedent that was established has become the basic bedrock, the key leading precedent, that these victims’ cases have been based on… these lawyers who have handled cases on behalf of victims of terror, rely on the Boim precedent.” Read More New Report on Anti-Semitism Within United Nations Agency Nathaniel Berman, Brandeis BlogLast month, UN Watch reported on over twenty cases in which staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) promoted terror against Jews and Israel and over a hundred separate instances of UNRWA teachers and staff celebrating and promoting violence. Following the release of the report, UN Watch called for UNRWA’s major funders – which includes the U.S. – to pressure the organization to adhere to its own “zero tolerance” policy against racism, discrimination, and anti-Semitism. Read More Senators Call for Global Adoption of IHRA Working Definition Chloe Shrager, Brandeis BlogAt the virtual Central America Forum for Israel conference, U.S. Senators James Lankford and Jacky Rosen called for a wider adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of anti-Semitism in combatting globally surging Jew-hatred. The forum brought together leaders from across Central America to reject Jew-hatred and unite in a powerful show of allyship with Israel. Read More Long Island Towns Adopt IHRA Chloe Shrager, Brandeis BlogThe Village of Great Neck, N.Y. joined five other New York State municipalities in adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of anti-Semitism. Similar successes have been seen in Kentucky, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Massachusetts. The adoption of the IHRA Definition in communities throughout the country continues to be an important tool to call out and combat Jew-hatred and injustice everywhere. Read More LDB Appoints Resnicoff to Academic Advisory Board Chloe Shrager, Brandeis BlogThe Brandeis Center recently announced the appointment of Professor Steven H. Resnicoff to the Center’s Academic Advisory Board. Resnicoff is a professor of law at DePaul University and director of the university’s Center for Jewish Law & Judaic Studies. He is an internationally known legal scholar whose expertise will serve as a great resource for the Center. Welcome to Academic Advisor Steven Resnicoff in his new role! Read More The Louis D. Brandeis Center is a nonprofit organization supported by individuals, groups and foundations that share our concern about Jewish college students. Contributions are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To support our efforts to combat campus anti-Semitism, please contact us at info@brandeiscenter.com Donate Here The Louis D. Brandeis Center 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1025, Washington, DC 20006You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
JTA ~ KENNETH L. MARCUS (September 3, 2021 ~ 10:00 AM) (JTA) — Deborah Lipstadt, recently named by President Joe Biden as the U.S. Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, won’t just combat anti-Semitism but may well eliminate it. And that would be a mistake. To be clear, the Emory University historian is a fierce opponent of Jew-hatred and Holocaust denial, having vanquished the Holocaust denier David Irving in a British court, among other triumphs over bigotry. But over the past few years, Lipstadt has led a campaign to eliminate the hyphen in the word “anti-Semitism,” preferring “antisemitism.” Why do hyphens matter? Lipstadt argues that “anti-Semitism” is misleading because it denotes hatred of Semites, not Jews. She notes that the German historian who coined the term “anti-Semitism” was a far-right polemicist who sought to blame Jews for the “Semitic” characteristics that allegedly incited anti-Jewish bigotry. She joins several authorities who have eliminated the hyphen in response to those who, either for political reasons or in error, misuse the term to minimize its anti-Jewish character. [The Associated Press and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency are among the news organizations that have recently agreed to the change.] The issue generates surprising controversy. In Palgrave’s new collection of essays, “Key Concepts in the Study of Antisemitism,” some authors eschew the hyphen, arguing that it lends credence to offensive arguments about Jews’ racial otherness. Others, however, prefer the hyphen either because of common usage or to emphasize that the term originates in a tradition that viewed Jews and Arabs as sharing a common “Oriental” heritage. This caused the editors to throw up their hands in frustration. Unable to choose, they permit both spellings, skittering back and forth in a way they acknowledge may be “disconcerting.” Lipstadt is right that “anti-Semitism” has misleadingly conflated Jews and “Semites” since it was first coined in the 19th century. But she is wrong to think eliminating the hyphen will solve anything. In German, “Antisemitismus” has been hyphen-less for over a century. This has not averted the confusion that worries Lipstadt. Nor did it eliminate Jew-hatred in that country. The problem lies not in the hyphen but in the term itself, which was invented by Jew-haters who thought its pseudo-scientific sound would give social acceptability to their prejudice. Scholars and linguists, however, have yet to devise a suitable alternative. “Jew-hatred,” “anti-Judaism” and “Judaeophobia” have their partisans, but each term has problems. Until a better term arrives, we are stuck with anti-Semitism. Hyphen removal is no panacea. The dilemma worsens when the hyphen is removed from “anti-Semitism” but not its handmaiden, “anti-Zionism.” Much commentary surrounds the contested relationship between these concepts. Some say that anti-Semitism refers to discrimination against “Jews as Jews,” while anti-Zionism means opposition to Zionists as Zionists. They are wrong about both. Anti-Semitism opposes Jews based on false stereotypes and gross fantasies. It hates Jews not as Jews but as monsters whose villainy is concocted by the haters. In the same way, anti-Zionism hates Zionists not as Zionists but as figments of the haters’ imaginations. Zionism can be many things: a political ideology, the yearning of a people for return to a land, the Diaspora’s support for Israel’s security. But it never means the murderous, world-dominating conspiracy that its opponents fantasize about. The hyphen in “anti-Zionists” wrongly suggests that such people oppose what Zionism really is, as opposed to what they imagine it to be. Historian James Loeffler argues that anti-Zionism, as a concept and a construct, deserves the same historical analysis as anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism, as opposition to Jewish national aspirations, arises from many strands within the Jewish and Arab worlds. As a distinct ideology, however, antizionism (the spelling is mine) was forged in Soviet propaganda, in the context of the Cold War and the rise of post-colonialism, as a reaction to Israel’s orientation toward the United States and the West. This ideology of hate fuses age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes, European conspiracy theories, left-wing anti-nationalism and post-Cold War geopolitics. This new ideology, which has gained considerable steam since the Second Intifada and the United Nations’ 2001 Durban anti-racism conference, should not be conflated with the political movements — including the opposition to Zionism that arose among Jews themselves — that preceded it. If ever there is a place to remove the hyphen, it is here: Antizionism today is no mere opposition to Zionism. It reflects instead an independent form of hate with its own history and logic. At the Louis D. Brandeis Center, we frequently defend Jewish students and professors who are stigmatized, excluded or attacked for their sympathies toward the State of Israel. If their antagonists were merely critics of Zionism as a political movement, then this might be a mere political dispute, albeit one conducted with unusually nasty tactics. In fact, students are targeted because Zionism is an overt element of their identity as Jews. This Zionophobia, as some prefer to call it, can only be understood on its own terms as a distinctive form of prejudice. This notion is lost when anti-Zionism is hyphenated but antisemitism is not. Thus between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, there should be two hyphens or none. Most commentators have praised Lipstadt’s nomination, given her international reputation. A few critics oppose based on her perceived partisanship. As a former Republican appointee, I am willing to go out on a limb: Confirm Lipstadt, but let her fight anti-Semitism. If she wants to go hyphenless, she must fight antizionism, too. KENNETH L. MARCUS is a former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights and author of The Definition of Anti-Semitism. He is founder and chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.
Commentary ~ By Kenneth L. Marcus – September 2021 ~ Last May, Zoom-bombers hijacked a Stanford University townhall and broadcast racist messages that displayed images of swastikas and weapons and made use of the N-word. This incident caused widespread distress, including among Stanford’s Jewish community. Nevertheless, the diversity committee at Stanford’s psychological counseling division decided to omit mention of anti-Semitism in its post-mortem of the incident so as not to overshadow anti-black racism. To be clear, Stanford’s diversity experts do not avoid Jewish issues altogether. In January of this year, diversity trainers described how Jews are connected to white supremacy. Another has boasted that she takes an anti-Zionist approach to social justice. Jewish staff have reported being pressured to attend the diversity and inclusion program’s racially segregated “whiteness accountability” affinity group, created for “staff who hold privilege via white identity” and “who are white identified” and “may be newly grappling with or realizing their white identity, or identify as or are perceived as white presenting or passing (aka seen as white by others even though you hold other identities).” This phenomenon is well-described by British comedian David Baddiel in Jews Don’t Count. Baddiel begins with the story of Holly Williams, the Observerbook critic who panned Charlie Kaufman’s excellent novel Antkind (2020) for providing only a “white-male-cis-het perspective.” Williams didn’t mention that Kaufman is Jewish and that his narrator, B. Rosenberger Rosenberg, is “Jewish-looking” with a “rabbinical beard” and is addressed as “Jew” and subjected to such greetings as “F**k you, Hebrew.” For the reviewer, Antkind presents only a “white-dude inner life.” The problem, as Baddiel describes through such examples, is that Jewish identity is erased in progressive circles. This can be gleaned easily enough in discussions of “cultural appropriation.” Google “cultural appropriation food” and one finds outrage about affronts to Chinese, Indian, or Caribbean culture. But when one adds “Jewish,” one finds only articles chastising Jews for appropriating Palestinian foods. Baddiel finds not a single blog post, article, or tweet about the appropriation of bagels, chopped liver, chicken soup, or corned beef. Similarly, Jewish actors are criticized for playing other minorities, but no one is criticized for playing a Jew. Scarlett Johansson was blasted for accepting the role of a trans sex worker. Gal Gadot was slammed for agreeing to play Cleopatra, the Ptolemaic queen. By contrast, Al Pacino, Gary Oldman, John Turturro, and countless other non-Jews have played Jewish characters without public protest. The question is not whether it should be acceptable for these actors to play Jewish characters. The question is: Why the double-standard? Baddiel goes further, maintaining that non-Jewish actors get away with performing in “Jewface.” This is personal for Baddiel, who has been criticized for his blackface impression of a British soccer player on British television. Baddiel does not defend his own use of blackface but argues that a double standard applies to Jews. His example is Al Pacino in the Amazon Prime series Hunters. The point, Baddiel emphasizes, is not that Pacino wears any obvious Jewish makeup when he plays a Jewish character, “except a beard, and little glasses, and his costume, a black rabbinical suit.” The point rather is that he plays the character, in Baddiel’s phrase, “really f**king Jewishly” (emphasis omitted). When Jews speak about anti-Semitism, others, including progressive non-Jews, feel no compunction about telling Jews that what they have experienced is not racist. This begins with the assumption that Jews are white. But, as Baddiel argues, “Jews are not white. Or not quite. Or at least they don’t always feel it.” Jews are not safe from prejudice, dispossession, and mistreatment. The irony is that white supremacists generally see Jews as non-whites, even as corrupters of the white race. According to this Law of Schrödinger’s Jew, Jews are either white or non-white depending on the politics of the observer. That is to say, Jews tend to assume the appearance of whatever group the observer most dislikes: white (even “hyper-white,” as some have put it) to the progressive anti-racists but non-white to the Aryan supremacists. Author Ben Freeman made the same point when he coined the term “erasive anti-Semitism,” which refers to erasing Jewish identity or denying Jewish victimhood. The former is when you insist that B. Rosenberger Rosenberg is nothing but a “white dude.” The latter is when you say that anti-Semitism should not be addressed at Stanford. Daphna Kaufman expanded on Freeman’s article in a March 2021 Reut Center policy paper. Kaufman explains that erasive anti-Semitism unfolds in three steps. First, it denies Jews and Jewish communities the right to self-define and to present their own narrative. This can be seen, for example, when progressives reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism in favor of other statements, such as the Jerusalem Declaration, which downplay the relationship between anti-Zionism and Jew-hatred. Next, Jews are blamed for the discriminatory power structure that the progressive movement opposes,building upon age-old stereotypes of Jewish power, conspiracy, and control. Finally, the process neutralizes Jewish voices on anti-Semitism, challengingthe legitimacy of Jewish advocacy. This can be seen when anti-Israel activists are described as “human-rights organizations,” while Jewish civil-rights groups are dismissively labeled “the Israel lobby.” Disappointingly, many Jews participate in their own erasure, especially if they are eager for acceptance into elite circles. It was, after all, Jewish labor union leader Randi Weingarten who castigated American Jews for becoming “part of the ownership class” and, worse, for wanting “to take [the] ladder of opportunity away from those who do not have it.” It should be noted here that B. Rosenberger Rosenberg repeatedly denies that he is Jewish. The fact is, as Charlie Kaufman’s readers know, Rosenberg is clearly Jewish but, like too many Jews, is ashamed and conflicted about his identity. He may prefer to view himself as vanilla, but this reflects only his own ambivalence. Those who observe Rosenberg will see him in very different ways, depending not on his prejudices but their own. And where that leads is not hard to foresee, whether in Kaufman’s novels or on the college campus. Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which represents members of Stanford University’s Counseling and Psychological Services division in connection with matters discussed here
Jewish Insider ~ By Melissa Weiss [August 18, 2021] David Boim was 17 years old when he was shot and killed by a Hamas terrorist at a West Bank bus stop in May 1996. The legal battle waged by his parents to hold accountable U.S.-based organizations that contributed funds to Hamas has lasted far longer than the teenager’s life. But Stanley and Joyce Boim scored a legal victory on Monday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a dismissal of the case that had prevented the family from moving forward to collect a $156 million judgement from the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) — organizations they claim had shuttered and reopened under a new name in order to avoid payment. The Boim family had initially been awarded a $52 million judgement payable by IAP, also known as the American Muslim Society, and HLF. “The Boim legal precedent that was established has become the basic bedrock, the key leading precedent, that these victims’ cases have been based on,” Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights President Alyza Lewin, an attorney for the Boims for more than 20 years along with her father, Nathan Lewin, told JI. “And that’s why when you look at the amicus briefs that were filed in this case, many of them, these lawyers who have handled cases on behalf of victims of terror, rely on the Boim precedent.” The payment was tripled by the Anti-Terrorism Act, enacted in the early 1990s, which increased the amount of damages awarded to victims or terror or their relatives.Shortly after the 2004 ruling, IAP/AMS and HLF closed their doors. Within a year of the shuttering of both groups, the nonprofit American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) was created, and hired former staff from both organizations. In addition, AMP began holding annual conferences at the same time and featuring the same speakers, attendees and management as previous IAP/AMS conferences.“When we realized that they were essentially the same organizations under different names,” explained Daniel Schlessinger, an attorney representing the Boim family, “we filed our lawsuit, in 2017, under this ‘alter ego theory.’” A judge in Illinois had initially ruled that AMP could not be considered an “alter ego” of the earlier organizations, a classification usually reserved for corporate cases in which a company shuts down, only to transfer assets, institutional knowledge and clientele, among other things, to a newly created company. The Boim family encountered multiple dismissals, appealing or asking for reconsideration — winning each time. Following Monday’s ruling, the Boim family’s attorneys will attempt to prove in court the direct linkage between AMP and IAP/AMS. Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has spent years tracking terror financing, called the decision “a significant victory.” “It’s a reversal of the previous decision that opens the floodgates of discovery,” Schanzer told JI. “A lot more can now be learned about the defendants. The outcome is still far from certain. And the road ahead will be long. But at least we now know where this case is going: forward.”
Watch the Webinar Here! Our Summer Speaker Series concludes with a discussion on “The Legal Battle Against Campus Anti-Semitism” featuring LDB attorneys, Kenneth L. Marcus, Alyza D. Lewin and Denise Katz-Prober.
The Stanford Daily ~ From The Community | Why we filed a discrimination complaint against Stanford by Ronald Albucher and Sheila Levin ~ Ronald Albucher is a psychiatrist and former CAPS director. Sheila Levin is a former clinical care manager for CAPS and an eating disorder specialist.The two filed complaints in June with state and federal civil rights agencies against the University, alleging Stanford of promoting antisemitism through a diversity, equity and inclusion training program. As psychotherapists, we strongly support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. When offered the opportunity to participate in Stanford’s Counseling Program’s (CAPS) DEI training to become better allies to other marginalized groups, we were excited to dive in. Unfortunately, what we found was that the very program meant to help build an inclusive environment for all members of the Stanford community was, in fact, perpetrating the invidious discrimination it sought to eliminate. Shortly after the DEI program began, we began observing that, in fact, CAPS staff intentionally overlooked anti-Semitic incidents on campus. Not only did we notice repeated instances in which anti-Semitic symbols were intentionally excluded from the dialogue, but we also witnessed overt anti-Semitism expressed by several leaders of the CAPS DEI committee. For example, in our DEI meeting we were scheduled to discuss a Zoom-bombing incident during which swastikas and weapons were drawn onscreen and the N-word was repeated multiple times. In the discussion of this event, however, DEI committee leaders decided to omit the swastikas, stating that they did not want anti-Semitism to dominate the discussion, since Jews are wealthy business owners. When more swastikas were discovered in Memorial Church, DEI facilitators said we would discuss this incident only if time permitted. Yet, there was no further mention of this blatant expression of anti-Semitism. Failing to even acknowledge the very images used to promote Jewish genocide, especially during a DEI training, is deeply concerning. After all, as history has shown time and time again, silence is complicity. The deafening silence by CAPS’s DEI program was far scarier than the swastikas themselves. Even within the DEI Program, we personally experienced instances of overt anti-Semitism. For example, when one of us reached out to express interest in becoming a better ally to other marginalized groups, one DEI leader responded by calling out Jewish “immense power and privilege” and stating, “you are a part [sic] of the systemic racism and oppression that takes place in this country.” The irony in these false stereotypes is that they have been used to promote conspiracy theories throughout history to justify Jewish persecution and genocide. And as an immigrant daughter of two World War II survivors, hearing the very tropes the Nazis used to justify Jewish genocide used in a DEI meeting was shocking and appalling. We attempted to work with leadership first within CAPS, then within Vaden, then with Stanford Human Resources, and finally at the level of the Vice Provost for Student Affairs and the Chair of the Stanford Department of Psychiatry. Navigating the various levels of bureaucracy took us nearly a year and a half. During that time, we saw continued evidence of anti-Semitism from several leaders of the DEI committee and silence from colleagues and supervisors. When our early attempts to work within the system did not succeed, we contacted the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a legal advocacy group in Washington, D.C., whose mission is to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people. We sought the Brandeis Center’s guidance in our efforts to convince Stanford that anti-Semitism is a real, ongoing threat, that it is harmful to Jews and to the effort to create a truly inclusive DEI program, and that it negatively affects Jewish and Israeli students who might seek care at CAPS. Since the University failed to address the problem despite our months-long efforts, we filed, with the Brandeis Center’s assistance, a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Without question it would have been easier to remain silent. The decision to file our complaint knowing colleagues we have worked with for several decades may see it as an act of disloyalty weighed heavily upon us. Yet we knew we had an obligation to do so. If we stay silent during a DEI discussion where Hitler’s words are repurposed, we are complicit in bigotry and stereotyping that threatens all minorities. As Jews we repeat the phrase “never again.” We will never again stand passively by while any group of people is at risk. Thus, we write to The Daily today to curb the false stereotypes surrounding Jews. If we stand idly by while such claims employ the very same rhetoric that has caused Jewish persecution through the ages, we risk becoming victims of hatred and violence once again. We deeply believe that DEI training at Stanford should be diverse, equitable and inclusive of all marginalized groups. Spouting anti-Semitic tropes merely supports white supremacy, endangering us all. — Ronald Albucher and Sheila Levin
Ronald Albucher is a psychiatrist and former CAPS director. Sheila Levin is a former clinical care manager for CAPS and an eating disorder specialist.The two filed complaints in June with state and federal civil rights agencies against the University, alleging Stanford of promoting antisemitism through a diversity, equity and inclusion training program. As psychotherapists, we strongly support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. When offered the opportunity to participate in Stanford’s Counseling Program’s (CAPS) DEI training to become better allies to other marginalized groups, we were excited to dive in. Unfortunately, what we found was that the very program meant to help build an inclusive environment for all members of the Stanford community was, in fact, perpetrating the invidious discrimination it sought to eliminate. Shortly after the DEI program began, we began observing that, in fact, CAPS staff intentionally overlooked anti-Semitic incidents on campus. Not only did we notice repeated instances in which anti-Semitic symbols were intentionally excluded from the dialogue, but we also witnessed overt anti-Semitism expressed by several leaders of the CAPS DEI committee. For example, in our DEI meeting we were scheduled to discuss a Zoom-bombing incident during which swastikas and weapons were drawn onscreen and the N-word was repeated multiple times. In the discussion of this event, however, DEI committee leaders decided to omit the swastikas, stating that they did not want anti-Semitism to dominate the discussion, since Jews are wealthy business owners. When more swastikas were discovered in Memorial Church, DEI facilitators said we would discuss this incident only if time permitted. Yet, there was no further mention of this blatant expression of anti-Semitism. Failing to even acknowledge the very images used to promote Jewish genocide, especially during a DEI training, is deeply concerning. After all, as history has shown time and time again, silence is complicity. The deafening silence by CAPS’s DEI program was far scarier than the swastikas themselves. Even within the DEI Program, we personally experienced instances of overt anti-Semitism. For example, when one of us reached out to express interest in becoming a better ally to other marginalized groups, one DEI leader responded by calling out Jewish “immense power and privilege” and stating, “you are a part [sic] of the systemic racism and oppression that takes place in this country.” The irony in these false stereotypes is that they have been used to promote conspiracy theories throughout history to justify Jewish persecution and genocide. And as an immigrant daughter of two World War II survivors, hearing the very tropes the Nazis used to justify Jewish genocide used in a DEI meeting was shocking and appalling. We attempted to work with leadership first within CAPS, then within Vaden, then with Stanford Human Resources, and finally at the level of the Vice Provost for Student Affairs and the Chair of the Stanford Department of Psychiatry. Navigating the various levels of bureaucracy took us nearly a year and a half. During that time, we saw continued evidence of anti-Semitism from several leaders of the DEI committee and silence from colleagues and supervisors. When our early attempts to work within the system did not succeed, we contacted the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a legal advocacy group in Washington, D.C., whose mission is to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people. We sought the Brandeis Center’s guidance in our efforts to convince Stanford that anti-Semitism is a real, ongoing threat, that it is harmful to Jews and to the effort to create a truly inclusive DEI program, and that it negatively affects Jewish and Israeli students who might seek care at CAPS. Since the University failed to address the problem despite our months-long efforts, we filed, with the Brandeis Center’s assistance, a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Without question it would have been easier to remain silent. The decision to file our complaint knowing colleagues we have worked with for several decades may see it as an act of disloyalty weighed heavily upon us. Yet we knew we had an obligation to do so. If we stay silent during a DEI discussion where Hitler’s words are repurposed, we are complicit in bigotry and stereotyping that threatens all minorities. As Jews we repeat the phrase “never again.” We will never again stand passively by while any group of people is at risk. Thus, we write to The Daily today to curb the false stereotypes surrounding Jews. If we stand idly by while such claims employ the very same rhetoric that has caused Jewish persecution through the ages, we risk becoming victims of hatred and violence once again. We deeply believe that DEI training at Stanford should be diverse, equitable and inclusive of all marginalized groups. Spouting anti-Semitic tropes merely supports white supremacy, endangering us all. — Ronald Albucher and Sheila Levin
The Johns Hopkins News-Letter ~ By MIN-SEO KIM | August 6, 2021 ~ Earlier this year, the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) began an investigation into Rasha Anayah, a graduate student and teaching assistant (TA) for Applied Chemical Equilibrium and Reactivity with Lab, after reports surfaced that several of her tweets targeted Zionist and Jewish students. In the tweets, Anayah entertained the notion of failing the exam of a “Zionist student” in a Twitter poll and stated her disdain for the prospect of teaching Jewish students who went on a Birthright trip to Israel. This July, the Jewish advocacy groups StandWithUs and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law issued a follow-up letter demanding more aggressive action from the University to make clear its commitment to an inclusive environment for Jewish students as part of the institution’s responsibilities under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VI dictates that any institution that receives federal funds, such as Hopkins, must comply with anti-discrimination legislation lest it face the possibility of losing government subsidies. Specifically, the groups recommend issuing a strongly worded statement condemning antisemitism and anti-Zionism, adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of antisemitism as part of its anti-racism training and making it clear that the University will not tolerate discrimination or hostility toward pro-Israel Jewish students. The IHRA defines anti-semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” President of the Brandeis Center Alyza Lewin explained why she and her organization view Jewish identity as closely linked to that of Zionism, an ideology that advocates for the establishment of a Jewish state. “Expressing support for Israel’s existence as a Jewish homeland and expressing pride in the Jewish state for many Jews grows out of their Jewish identity,” she said in an interview with The News-Letter. She argued that, as a result, condemning Zionists effectively attacks Jewish students. Lewin drew particular attention to one of Anayah’s tweets that asked her followers if it was ok to fail the exam of a “Zionist student.” “She instigated her students to think and feel negatively toward Zionists and treat them in a discriminatory fashion,” Lewin said. Sophomore Harvey McGuinness described what he sees as the difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. “I don’t think anti-Zionism is the same thing as antisemitism at its core,” he said. “However, in the non-Jewish community, it has become [the same] because in the modern era being Jewish is so closely associated with Israel, specifically from people observing the community and making assumptions from the outside.” He emphasized that there is a distinction between criticizing the government and policies of Israel and overt antisemitism. However, he feels that that these criticisms often escalate into overt hatred. For example, McGuinness believes that Anayah’s tweets about Zionists and ethnic cleansing made the antisemitic assumptions that all Jewish students are Zionists and that just because one supports Israel, one supports every action and policy enacted by the Israeli government. Because Anayah made an explicit reference to Birthright, which McGuinness sees as an integral experience for many Jewish youth, he believes that her statements veered into antisemitism as they appeared directed toward Jewish students. According to Hopkins Hillel President of the Student Board Alanna Margulies, Hopkins Hillel maintains the position that anti-Zionism is often a spinoff of antisemitism. “The official Hillel position is that many forms of anti-Zionism are an extension of antisemitism and that anti-Zionism has historically been a tool [used] by antisemitic actors,” she said. In an email to The News-Letter, Roz Rothstein, CEO of StandWithUs, asserted that even if the TA hadn’t acted upon her threats, her actions were indefensible as they encouraged discrimination. “Whether or not any Jewish or Zionist student was academically penalized by this TA due to their identity, the primary concern is that by posting a poll to Twitter asking others to weigh in on how she should treat Zionist students, the TA has incited others to target Zionist students with unequal treatment based on their identity,” she wrote. In the joint letter, the two advocacy groups have noted that the University so far only pledged to launch an investigation and has remained otherwise silent on the matter. The organizations see these actions as insufficient in rectifying the hostile environment created and preventing future incidents. Rothstein added that the University must be more aggressive in combating antisemitism in order to ensure equal access to educational opportunities. “[Hopkins] must take every step necessary to ensure an educational environment free from antisemitism,” she wrote. “Jewish and Zionist students must be reassured that they will not be deprived of equal opportunity to participate in every educational program and/or class available to them at [Hopkins] and we await a clear affirmation of this from the University.” International Relations Professor Steven David, however, asserted that the University should be less focused on rhetoric and more focused on ensuring that its graders are not influenced by students’ backgrounds in an email to The News-Letter. “Condemning anti[s]emitism is virtually meaningless, and condemning anti-Zionism enmeshes the [a]dministration in areas it should stay out of,” he wrote. “What I would like to see is the University making it clear that those responsible for grading our students cannot allow race, ethnicity, religion or perceived political beliefs [to] be a factor in that grading.” David also noted that he would like the University to release any details on what they have done in response to the episode, if they have launched an investigation to see if any grades were impacted and the results of that investigation. In an email to Lewin, Provost Sunil Kumar highlighted that federal privacy laws limit the University’s ability to share information about OIE investigations. Neither OIE nor the Department of Chemistry responded to The News-Letter’s request for comment. Lewin noted that the tweets came at a time of a troubling national trend regarding antisemitism across the country. “There has been, nationwide, a serious uptick in antisemitic incidents across the country. Recent months have seen not only an uptick in antisemitic rhetoric, but actually in antisemitic violence,” she said. “We know there are students that are worried about returning in person to classes and campus.” She expressed her concern that should the University fail to make it clear that it does not tolerate antisemitic behavior on campus, Hopkins might witness a similar surge in hateful rhetoric and actions. McGuinness emphasized his concern for his personal safety regarding the rhetoric coming from some Hopkins students. “I will say as a Jewish student, a lot of the discourse, including from students at Hopkins in positions of power, is frightening,” he said. “It makes me feel less than safe and it’s backpedaling. It’s concerning.” Alanna Margulies is a contributing writer for The News-Letter. She did not contribute reporting, writing or editing to this article.