~ Brandeis Brief: August 2021 ~ Last month, the Brandeis Center co-authored a letter alongside StandWithUs to Johns Hopkins University demanding action in response to a teaching assistant who shared anti-Semitic social media posts inciting hatred against Jewish students. The instructor tweeted, “ethical dilemma: if you have to grade a zionist students [sic] exam, do you still give them all their points even though they support your ethnic cleansing? like idk.” The joint letter was sent after six months of public silence from the school. It has generated coverage in Newsweek, The Jerusalem Post, The Forward, Baltimore Jewish Times, and Campus Reform. In other news, Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin has joined the debate surrounding Ben & Jerry’s recent decision to end sales in “occupied Palestinian territory,” making statements to multiple news sources supporting the constitutionality of anti-BDS laws and speaking on the financial and legal consequences the company may experience as a result of its boycott. Meanwhile, LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus is featured in a new Tikvah Fund podcast, and LDB Vice Chair Rachel Lerman has assumed additional duties as Senior Counsel. “Jewish Groups Calls For Johns Hopkins To Break Silence On TA’s Anti-Semitic Posts” Ben Zeisloft (Campus Reform) The Brandeis Center teamed up with StandWithUs to joint-author a letter to Johns Hopkins University demanding that the institution take action against discriminatory online comments that targeted Zionist students. Six months after the incident, the university has still failed to speak publicly on the issue. Johns Hopkins cited FERPA privacy laws as justification for their silence, but privacy laws do not shield the university from its obligation to protect Jewish students. LDB Vice Chair Rachel Lerman explained that “Privacy laws don’t stand in the way — the University can and must make clear it will not tolerate conduct that encourages its graduate students to turn on undergraduates they are hired to teach or treat them in a discriminatory way… By refusing to make this clear, the University is failing to live up to its obligations.” Read More New York Times Columnist Bret Stephens Discusses The Brandeis Center’s Stanford Case Brandeis BlogIn a recent New York Times article about “new” versus “old” forms of racism, contributor Bret Stephens discusses LDB’s case against Stanford University. Stephens argues that the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program’s “white accountability” groups exemplify the “new” form of racism derived from “antiracist discrimination.” Read More LDB Signs Letter To University Presidents Requesting IHRA Adoption Brandeis Blog The Brandeis Center signed a letter urging university presidents to formally adopt the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism following the spike in anti-Semitism caused by the recent conflict in Gaza. The letter reminds universities that they are not immune to the impacts of anti-Semitism and should take proactive measures to ensure the safety of Jewish students and faculty. Read More Are The US Anti-BDS Laws Causing Financial Challenges For Ben & Jerry’s And Unilever Constitutional? Sean Savage (JNS), Arno Rosenfeld (The Forward)Ben & Jerry’s recent decision to end sales in “occupied Palestinian territory” could cause intense legal and financial repercussions for the ice-cream manufacturer and its parent company, Unilever. The anti-BDS laws adopted by 35 U.S. States may impose substantial financial consequences on the international conglomerate. Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin explains to the Cleveland Jewish News that “legal action… instituted by private parties in U.S. courts” and “private boycotts… by upset consumers” could also negatively impact Unilever’s business. In a separate article, Lewin explains the constitutional grounds for anti-BDS legislation, arguing that “State governments have the ability to determine how they want to spend their money.” Read more on the business challenges posed against Unilever by anti-BDS legislation. Read more on the debate over the constitutionality of the anti-BDS laws aimed at Ben & Jerry’s. “We Will Not Be Silent” – The ‘No Fear Rally’ Rabbi Mark N. Wildes (The Jewish Press) Rabbi Mark N. Wildes shares his takeaways from the recent rally in Washington, D.C., including feelings of sadness at the mere need to have a rally against anti-Semitism. Rabbi Wildes highlights LDB Center President Alyza Lewin and commends Alyza for her remarks. In her speech, Alyza highlighted how Jews today are being pressured to shed their pride in their Jewish ancestral and ethnic heritage. She noted that “A world that cannot appreciate Jews, is a world that does not tolerate difference.” Read Mark Wildes’ article Here Read Alyza’s remarks Here, or watch a video of Alyza’s remarks below. LDB Center President Alyza Lewin speaks at DC No Fear Rally Kenneth Marcus Featured On The Tikvah Podcast To Discuss The Effectiveness Of The IHRA Definition On Protecting Civil Rights The Tikvah Podcast Kenneth L. Marcus was featured on the Tikvah Podcast to discuss how the adoption of the IHRA Definition can help the government protect civil rights. In his discussion, Mr. Marcus highlights how often anti-Semitism goes unrecognized and how the adoption of the working definition of anti-Semitism is integral to protecting Jews in spaces such as public universities. Listen Here “The Biden Administration Must Step Up To Stop Anti-Semitism” Ida R. Eblinger Kelley (JNS) Ida R. Eblinger Kelley calls for bipartisan efforts within the Biden Administration to make a serious impact on the current surge in anti-Semitism. In this new article, Kelley highlights Kenneth L. Marcus’s proposed steps for combating anti-Semitism, including his call for an executive order. Eblinger Kelly goes even further to explain four additional steps she feels are necessary, including an emphasis on the widespread adoption of the IHRA definition. Read More LDB’s Former JIGSAW Fellow David Benger “Gets ‘Dicey’ With Anti-Zionists” Chana Fischer (Jewish Link) A recent article published in Jewish Link details the story of David Benger, a former LDB Center JIGSAW fellow and former President of the LDB Chapter at Harvard Law School. Mr. Benger has gained a substantial following on social media sites such as Twitter and Clubhouse and uses his platform to engage in constructive conversations with progressive, anti-Zionist voices online. Read More LDB’s Summer Speaker Series Continues With Lesley Klaff And Mark Goldfeder Discussing “Law And Jewish Identity” Chloe Shrager, Brandeis Blog In the latest installment of the Brandeis Center’s summer speaker series, Professor and Brandeis Center Academic Advisory Board Member Lesley Klaff and Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder provided insightful legal analyses in a discussion about two age-old questions with regard to Jewish identity: are Jews a religious group, an ethnic group, or both? And, is Zionism an integral component of Jewish identity? Read More LDB Summer Speaker Series With Lesley Klaff And Mark Goldfeder The Brandeis Center Welcomes Vice Chair Rachel Lerman As Senior Counsel Samantha Crane, Brandeis Blog LDB is pleased to announce the appointment of L. Rachel Lerman as Senior Counsel. Ms. Lerman has vast experience as an appellate litigator and has been with LDB’s Board of Directors for several years, serving in recent years as Vice Chair. Her experience will serve as a great addition to the Brandeis Center’s fight against anti-Semitism. Welcome to Vice Chair Rachel in her new role! Read More
Kenneth Marcus on How the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism Helps the Government Protect Civil Rights The Tikvah PodcastWith anti-Semitism on the rise over the last few years, it is essential for institutions to be able to assess clearly whether an incident is anti-Semitic or not. For this purpose, over the last two decades many governments, companies, and international organizations have, as Joshua Muravchik discusses in this month’s Mosaic essay, adopted the “working definition of anti-Semitism” from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Today, the U.S. federal government uses the IHRA definition to assess federal claims of anti-Semitism under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and all government agencies also consider the IHRA definition in their own assessments of anti-Semitism. This week, Kenneth Marcus, who was instrumental in getting the federal government to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, joins our podcast. Formerly the assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education, Marcus has played a major role in protecting the civil rights of diverse groups, including Jews facing anti-Semitism; he’s also the author of Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America, and The Definition of Anti-Semitism. In conversation with Mosaic’s editor Jonathan Silver, he explains how the IHRA definition helps American officials protect civil rights. Musical selections in this podcast are drawn from the Quintet for Clarinet and Strings, op. 31a, composed by Paul Ben-Haim and performed by the ARC Ensemble. Listen on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tikvah-podcast/id921756215?i=1000530482460
JNS.org ~ by JNS Staff, July 28, 2021 ~ Dozens of college students from the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and elsewhere gathered online for the annual CAMERA on Campus conference aimed at empowering young adults to be advocates for Israel in an increasingly hostile environment. As speaker, professor and author Gil Troy told the students, “When you stand up on campus and increasingly in the public square these days, and when you stand up with CAMERA, it takes a huge amount of courage. … All of you have tremendous courage.” College campuses are a hotbed of anti-Zionist activity with students from far-left, progressive groups calling for their schools to participate in the BDS movement against Israel, and coupled by professors who publicly criticize the Jewish state during class. Added to that are incidents of anti-Semitism on campus, including verbal threats, vandalism such as swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti. “Students around the world are experiencing anti-Semitism, and they’re asking us how to respond to it,” said Aviva Rosenschein, CAMERA’s international campus director. “Our conference is addressing an organic need among students by providing them with high-level, content-rich strategies for pro-Israel activism.” Many of the student attendees at this week’s conference are fellows with CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis. They are on the frontlines of their campuses in the fight against anti-Israel activities by classmates and professors. Among the topics were workshops on writing news articles for university and local media, hosting events on campus and how to boost a pro-advocacy presence on social media. They also heard from several speakers throughout the three-day program. Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center, said Jewish students on campus often have to choose between their Jewish identity and support of Israel, and acceptance by their peers. She also laid out U.S. laws her organization uses to protect Jewish students on campus. “Since the latest round of Hamas-Israel fighting, anti-Israel activity has transmogrified into unapologetic anti-Semitism,” said Aidan Segal, a student at the University of Pittsburgh who has written for The Pitt News and for JNS. “People no longer hesitate to slander the Jewish state, and some are taking the invective to new levels by attacking Jews on the streets of Europe and America. That’s why we’re attending CAMERA’s conference; we want to learn strategies for combatting the hate we’re all facing.” Fellow speaker Hen Mazzig, a writer active on social media and in progressive causes who described himself at one point as a “Gay Mizrachi Jew,” said it was important for Jews to support causes they believe in yet still call out the anti-Semites in those movements. As for Troy, author of Why I Am a Zionist and other works, he told the students that while it’s important to speak up against those who delegitimize and criticize Israel, it can’t be all they do. “We have got to turn some of these negatives into positives,” he said. “We need to have a thoughtful, happy, delighted conversation about how lucky we are to be living in 2021. Because for all the challenges, we are blessed to have a Jewish state. We are blessed to have a Jewish people. We are blessed to know that we are part of the big, broad network where you can be like Natan Sharansky, nine years in the gulag, and know you are never alone. Or you can be on campus and know you are never alone.” The post Amid increasingly hostile campus environment, CAMERA teaches strategies to combat anti-Israel hate appeared first on JNS.org.
The Forward ~ By Arno Rosenfeld [July 27, 2021, The Forward] The Arkansas Times, a small monthly in Little Rock, hasn’t written a single article about Ben & Jerry’s recent decision to end sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Yet despite running a newspaper that he called “about as local and provincial as you can be,” publisher Alan Leveritt is at the center of a legal battle that could determine the right of American companies — including Ben & Jerry’s — to boycott the Jewish state. The Arkansas Times sued the state government in 2018 after it lost an advertising contract with a public university because Leveritt refused to sign a pledge, mandated by the legislature, not to promote a boycott of Israel. “We believe in free speech,” Leveritt said. “This an abridgment of the First Amendment: to take away 20% of our advertising because we won’t play ball.” The Times’ ongoing case is considered the most important legal test of the laws and executive orders in more than 30 states meant to stymie the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement aimed at Israel. Now, as officials in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Illinois seek to penalize Ben & Jerry’s for the Vermont ice cream company’s July 19 announcement that it would stop selling ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, legal challenges to anti-BDS statutes — including the Arkansas suit — offer clues as to whether such actions can pass constitutional muster. The Times’ ongoing case is considered the most important legal test of the laws and executive orders in more than 30 states meant to stymie the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement aimed at Israel. Now, as officials in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Illinois seek to penalize Ben & Jerry’s for the Vermont ice cream company’s July 19 announcement that it would stop selling ice cream in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, legal challenges to anti-BDS statutes — including the Arkansas suit — offer clues as to whether such actions can pass constitutional muster. The answer remains unclear because, while there have been a series of lawsuits, the legislation has consistently been amended so that it no longer applies to the original plaintiffs. “The advocates for these anti-BDS laws realize that whenever a lawsuit is filed they need to change the law to moot the lawsuit, otherwise they’re going to get a bad decision,” said Gadeir Abbas, an attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who argued that penalizing political boycotts is blatantly unconstitutional. Most lawsuits challenging the anti-BDS laws have been launched by sole proprietors, including teachers, an attorney, and a software engineer, who balked at taking an anti-BDS pledge as a requirement for winning a government contract. After initial wins in the courts, several of those laws were amended so that the pledge applied only to companies with at least 10 employees or $100,000 in contracts so that they no longer covered the individuals who had sued. The “Ben & Jerry’s” cases With sole proprietors largely written out of the laws, it has become more difficult for CAIR and the American Civil Liberties Union, which has also challenged the anti-boycott measures, to find plaintiffs. “Most people, even if they object to these anti-boycott forms, don’t want to be involved in a high profile lawsuit on Israel policy,” said Brian Hauss, who has led the ACLU’s litigation on boycott bans. While critics see the new focus on larger companies as a cynical ploy to get lawsuits dismissed, Joseph Sabag, director of the Israeli-American Coalition for Action, said the cases had been brought by plaintiffs who weren’t the intended targets, and that state legislatures had made changes that kept the core of the laws intact. “It simply isn’t worth it for the statutes to apply to individuals,” said Sabag, who drafted one of the original anti-BDS laws in South Carolina. “It’s not about some obscure teacher who wants a contract to teach an after-school program — states were looking for the Ben & Jerry’s cases.” Anti-BDS laws take two broad forms. One requires government contractors to agree not to boycott Israel. The other directs state investment funds to divest from publicly-traded corporations that refuse to do business with the Jewish state. The legal challenges have focused on the first category and in most cases courts have struck down the requirement for contractors to sign a pledge in order to receive government work. U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa wrote that Arizona’s anti-boycott law “unquestionably burdens the protected expressions of companies” in a 2018 ruling temporarily blocking its enforcement. The legislature amended the law so that it no longer applied to the local attorney who sued to overturn it, and the case was dismissed. Awaiting judgment But the Arkansas Times case remains active and, after divided rulings, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case this fall. Some observers believe it could ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court, where opponents of anti-BDS measures hope a decisive ruling could strike down the laws nationwide. Those who have lobbied for the statutes argue that they restrict commercial activity, not speech, and the revisions to the legislation have solidified their legitimacy. Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center, compared anti-boycott measures to government bans on doing business with companies that discriminate against protected classes of individuals. “There would be a quality of life impact if BDS were allowed to run its course,” said Joseph Sabag of IAC for Action. “State governments have the ability to determine how they want to spend their money,” Lewin said. Sabag, with IAC for Action, said that states had good reason to prohibit boycotts of Israel because a total ban would restrict imports of technology, pharmaceutical and other products that they rely on. “There would be a quality of life impact if BDS were allowed to run its course,” he said. (The BDS movement does not target every company doing business with Israel, focusing instead on strategic boycotts of specific businesses, according to its website. The boycott exempts companies like Intel, which do business in Israel but hold “near monopoly status” in the computer industry.) Hauss disagreed that the laws are about protecting commerce, and said that proponents of the anti-boycott legislation were quick to amend their laws in part because they simply wanted to make the idea of boycotting Israel risky. “They want to send a message that boycotting is illegal,” Hauss said, “and if you do boycott you’re going to have to look over your shoulder.” Leveritt, the newspaper publisher, agreed that the law was meant to send a message. When he tells people that his company has been forced to offer government agencies and institutions a 20% discount on advertising as a result of not signing the pledge — the penalty written into the law — he gets quizzical looks. Most folks in Arkansas aren’t following Israeli politics. “These bills don’t do anything,” Leveritt said. “This is culture war theater, is all it is.” Author Arno Rosenfeld Arno Rosenfeld is a staff writer for the Forward, where he covers U.S. politics and American Jewish institutions. You can reach him at arno@forward.com and follow him on Twitter @arnorosenfeld .
Cleveland Jewish News [by Sean Savage, July 22, 2021] The recent announcement that Ben & Jerry’s plans to end its sale of ice-cream in “occupied Palestinian territory,” primarily Judea and Samaria as well as eastern Jerusalem, has stirred a fierce reaction, including potential legal and financial repercussions for the ice-cream maker and its parent company Unilever. Brooke Goldstein, executive director of the Lawfare Project and co-founder of the End Jew Hatred movement, told JNS that the sheer size of Unilever opens it up to possible significant financial penalties. “By virtue of its wayward subsidiary, Unilever—a massive international conglomerate—risks potentially crushing financial consequences in terms of its ability to receive investments from, or do business with, the majority of U.S. states,” she said. Just hours after the announcement, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan, in coordination with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, sent a letter to 35 governors of American states that have laws against the BDS movement targeting Israel. Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told JNS that anti-BDS laws could certainly impact Unilever. “Enforcement of those laws will depend on the cooperation of government authorities in those jurisdictions,” she said. Lewin, who has represented cases of religious discrimination in the past and argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, also said that the anti-BDS laws are not the only route available. “Unilever might also experience consequences if legal action is instituted by private parties in U.S. courts. And, of course, private boycotts in the United States by upset consumers can impact Unilever’s business as well.” Some states have already begun look into the issue. Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar has directed his staff to see if the actions taken by Ben & Jerry’s or Unilever would trigger a listing under Chapter 808 of the Texas Government Code, which prohibits investment in companies that boycott Israel. “Texans have made it very clear that they stand with Israel and its people. We are against all those wishing to undermine Israel’s economy and its people,” Hegar said in a statement. Christians United for Israel, which is headquartered in Texas, said that it supports Hegar’s investigation. “This ensures that the voice of millions of pro-Israel Texans will be heard loud and clear should Texas be forced to divest its current holdings of Unilever as required by law,” said Pastor John Hagee and Sandra Hagee Parker. Meanwhile, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) has called on his state to immediately block the sale of all Ben & Jerry’s products in his state. Local governments have also taken action, with Hempstead, N.Y. declaring that will sever all ties with Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever on Thursday. ‘In the end, the boycotters will be boycotted’ Marc Greendorfer, president of the Zachor Legal Institute, told JNS that there are actually two types of anti-BDS laws that come into play. “Some of the laws only relate to the state entering into contracts with those who boycott Israel while other laws prohibit the state from holding investments in companies that boycott Israel,” he said. He noted that some states have two types of laws, while other states only have one—either the no-contract or no-investing law. While he doubts that the no-contract law will apply in most cases (since it would be unusual for states to enter into a contract for ice-cream) it could impact the parent company, Unilever. “Unilever could easily be banned from state contracts and since Unilever has many lines of business, they might also have state contracts that would be impacted,” he said. Greendorfer explained that “the more likely scenario is that states with the no-investing law will add Unilever to their prohibited investment lists and ultimately have to divest from Unilever stock” since Ben & Jerry’s is a subsidiary of Unilever. Unilever, a British multinational company headquartered in London, has annual revenues of $61 billion, and its products are sold in some 190 countries. Unilever CEO Alan Jope has attempted to distance the company from the move by Ben & Jerry’s board, which operates independently from its parent company on issues like social justice, saying that he remains “fully committed” to doing business in Israel. “Obviously, it’s a complex and sensitive matter that elicits very strong feelings,” he said in a call with investors, reported The Washington Post. “If there is one message I want to underscore in this call, it’s that Unilever remains fully committed to our business in Israel.” While Ben & Jerry’s said that it would continue to produce ice-cream inside of Israel through a “different arrangement,” it remains unclear how the company could differentiate between Israel and its settlements. Israeli law prevents local companies from boycotting settlements and the country’s supermarket chains, which are a main distribution channel for Ben & Jerry’s, all operate in settlements. In 2018, Airbnb announced that it would no longer list properties in Israeli settlements, which the company later reversed after several lawsuits filed in the United States and Israel. It will likely take several months, said Greendorfer, for states to go through the process of divesting from a prohibited investment, so it is unlikely that Unilever will see any immediate consequences. “But in the end,” he assured, “the boycotters will be boycotted, and Unilever will find that the cost of engaging in discriminatory boycotts is high.” The post Will US anti-BDS laws cause a financial meltdown for Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever? appeared first on JNS.org.
Campus Reform Ben Zeisloft | Student Editor (Friday, July 16, 2021 2:30 PM) ~ Johns Hopkins University is not seriously addressing a teaching assistant’s anti-Semitic posts that indicated she may give Jewish students failing grades. That accusation comes from groups such as StandWithUs and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Both organizations published a letter to the prestigious university last week, pressing the school to take substantive action, which they claim hasn’t occurred since the tweets posted in late 2020. Rachel Lerman, vice-chair and senior counsel at the Brandeis Center told Campus Reform that JHU has not taken steps to “eliminate the hostile environment” in this case. “The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has stated that when discriminatory treatment occurs, a university must take ‘prompt and effective steps’ to ‘eliminate the hostile environment’ and ‘prevent the harassment from recurring,'” Lerman said. Lerman added that the university is “failing to live up to its obligations.” Campus Reform reported on the tweets in January, quoting the alleged tweets Rasha Anayah, the teaching assistant, “ethical dilemma: if you have to grade a zionist students [sic] exam, do you still give them all their points even though they support your ethnic cleansing? like idk.” [RELATED: Johns Hopkins teaching assistant allegedly admits to lowering ‘zionist’ students’ grades] In a poll posted to her now-deleted Twitter account, the Anayah asked followers whether she ought to fail Zionist students. “Ethical dilemma: if you have to grade a Zionist students exam, do you still give them all their points even though they support your ethnic cleansing? like idk.” After the results were overwhelmingly in favor of the “free palestine! fail them” option, she said that she agreed. “We had an undergrad in lab who had been on birthright and had one of the street signs to tel aviv on her laptop,” she said in another post. “It stabbed me every time she opened it. If I had been paired to one of them or one of these conceited white boys i would have lost it.” [RELATED: Students for Justice in Palestine calls for impeachment of pro-Israel Jewish student, backs down after lawyers get involved] Representatives from StandWithUs and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law wrote a letter to Johns Hopkins administrators that encouraged them to address the tweets, which “constituted harassment of Jewish students who identify with the State of Israel, and created a hostile environment for these students.” “Not only did she threaten to fail these students, she encouraged her audience to join her campaign of hatred by purporting to take a ‘poll’ in favor of carrying out her threat,” reads the letter. “Even if the TA’s threat were an empty one, and she did not actually fail or lower the grades of any of the students for whom she evidently holds such contempt (which has yet to be demonstrated), it constituted harassment of those Jewish students for whom connection to Israel is a critical and deeply held component of their Jewish ancestral and ethnic identity.” [RELATED: Hundreds of Harvard students condemn Israel in statement that omits any mention of Hamas] In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the groups asked Johns Hopkins to “take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent the harassment from recurring.” “Public silence by the University will not rectify the situation,” adds the letter. “In order to eliminate the hostile environment and prevent the harassment from recurring, the University must, at a minimum, make clear that conduct such as that exhibited by the TA runs counter to the University’s values of mutual respect and inclusion and will not be tolerated.” Lerman told Campus Reform, “John Hopkins has not taken these steps. Conducting a private investigation is a preliminary step, but it is not enough to end the harassment or eliminate the hostile environment.” “Privacy laws don’t stand in the way—the University can and must make clear it will not tolerate conduct that encourages its graduate students to turn on undergraduates they are hired to teach or treat them in a discriminatory way,” Lerman continued. “By refusing to make this clear, the University is failing to live up to its obligations.” At the time of the original tweets in January, JHU Provost Sunil Kumar and interim Dean John Toscano told the Hillel chapter that they are investigating the incident, according to the JHU News-letter. “We are aware of an incident of alleged antisemitism and potential abuse of authority in the discharge of academic responsibilities on our campus,” the university officials wrote. “Any link between grading and bias runs counter to our values and policies, and we are taking all necessary steps to ensure that does not occur.” Campus Reform reached out to StandWithUs and Johns Hopkins University for comment; this article will be updated accordingly. Editor’s Note: Johns Hopkins University responded to Campus Reform after publication. Andrew Green, vice president for communications, said that “We take seriously any and all allegations related to academic integrity and discrimination, harassment, or other misconduct. As we have said publicly many times, Johns Hopkins unequivocally condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.” “The investigation into this matter has concluded. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 prohibits us from disclosing the details or outcome, but we can provide assurance that we took the matter very seriously and that the safety of our community was maintained through the process,” Green added.
The Forward Whatever happened to that John Hopkins teaching assistant who wanted to punish ‘Zionist students?’ by Stewart Ain (Forward ~ July 15, 2021) Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has reportedly concluded its investigation into the actions of a teaching assistant who asked in a tweet last Nov. 15 if she could lower the grade of “Zionist students” because of their support for “ethnic cleansing.” But the university has not disclosed its findings nor replied to those asking what is being done to prevent future incidents. “We are frustrated by the lack of public transparency by the university on the outcome of this investigation,” said Howard Libit, executive director of the Baltimore Jewish Council. In a letter July 9 to Sunil Kumar, the university’s provost, and Shanon Shumpert, its vice provost, two national organizations asked the university to disclose the steps it has taken to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to “end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent the harassment from recurring.” If the school’s investigation found that the threat of the teaching assistant, identified as Rasha Anayah, to fail her Zionist students was merely “an empty one,” they wrote, her actions “constituted harassment of those Jewish students for whom connection to Israel is a critical and deeply held component of their Jewish ancestral and ethnic identity. And by inviting others to agree with her, the TA actively sought to foster an environment hostile to these students at Johns Hopkins.” Courtesy of LinkedInIn a November 15 tweet, Johns Hopkins University teaching assistant Rasha Anayah wondered if she could lower the grades of Zionist students Neither Anayah nor the university responded to emails from the Forward seeking comment. The joint letter was written by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a nonprofit organization that promotes the civil and human rights of the Jewish people, and StandWithUs, an international nonprofit that supports Israel and combats antisemitism. In it, they expressed concern that the university’s “understanding of privacy laws may limit its efforts to end the harassment and hostile environment generated by the TA’s conduct.” “Not only did she threaten to fail these students, she encouraged her audience to join her campaign of hatred by purporting to take a ‘poll’ in favor of carrying out her threat,” the letter said of Anayah. The groups called on the university to issue a public statement “recognizing that for many students at Johns Hopkins, Zionism is an integral component of their Jewish ancestral and ethnic identity, and any efforts made by faculty and staff that demean, marginalize, ostracize, harass or discriminate against students on the basis of the Zionist component of their Jewish identity will not be tolerated.” In their letter, the two groups noted that the University of Michigan admonished a professor in 2018 who refused to write a letter of recommendation for a student after learning he wanted to study in Israel. They told him that he had an “obligation to support your students’ academic growth” and should not use his request “as a platform to express your own personal views.” The joint letter called on Johns Hopkins to “send an equally strong message to its faculty and teaching assistants. Doing so in no way violates the privacy rights of any individual faculty or staff member but is a necessary step toward remedying the hostile climate this incident has created.” Roz Rothstein, chief executive officer of StandWithUs, said that although the university issued a statement in January saying it does “not tolerate any link between academic grading and bias,” it failed to mention that the TA was targeting Jewish students. “Since this was a direct threat to Jewish students, why wouldn’t the university be specific and address the issue of discrimination against Jewish students at the school?” she asked. “I can’t imagine if this was an LGBTQ or African American or a woman’s group that there would be this treatment.” Asked what steps the two groups might take next, Alyza Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center, said it all depends on how the university responds. “I am concerned with what will happen in the fall,” she said. “I hope the university will take its responsibility seriously and issue a public statement designed to ensure that does not happen.” Author Stewart Ain Stewart Ain, an award-winning veteran journalist, covers the Jewish community.
Baltimore Jewish Times ~ By Jesse Berman July 14, 2021 ~ A July 9 letter addressed to administrators of Johns Hopkins University is demanding new action be taken some eight months after a Johns Hopkins teaching assistant created a social media post viewed as antisemitic. In November 2020, a teaching assistant, under the Twitter account “immalreesh,” tweeted, “ethical dilemma: if you have to grade a zionist students exam, do you still give them all their points even though they support your ethnic cleansing? like idk.” The tweet included a poll that included two choices: “yes rasha. be a good ta,” or “free palestine! fail them.” The “immalreesh” Twitter account no longer appears to be listed. Afterward, the Baltimore Zionist District and Stop Antisemitism identified the TA as Rasha Anayah. A LinkedIn profile bearing Anayah’s name lists her as a Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins and a graduate of University of California, Berkeley, with much of her listed coursework focusing on chemistry, biology and mathematics. The July letter, composed jointly by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and StandWithUs, was directed both to Sunil Kumar, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs, and Shanon Shumpert, vice provost for institutional equity. The July letter was in response, it said, to letters sent in February and May by Kumar, on behalf of the university leadership, to the Brandeis Center and StandWithUs regarding the issue. The Brandeis Center and StandWithUs, the July letter read, appreciated the decision to include antisemitism in the University’s anti-racism training. The groups also understood that certain privacy laws limit the university’s ability to share information regarding its investigation of the conduct of the teaching assistant. “We are nevertheless concerned that the University’s understanding of privacy laws may limit its efforts to end the harassment and hostile environment generated by the TA’s conduct,” the July letter read. “While investigation is an essential first step, it is just that—a first step. Not only is the University able to do more, it must do more, as a matter of federal civil rights law and University policy,” the July letter continued. The July letter called on Johns Hopkins to, at a minimum, make clear that the type of conduct the TA has been accused of will not be tolerated, and that it is not in keeping with the university’s values of inclusion and mutual respect. The July letter also urged Johns Hopkins to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism; publicize the means students can report harassment; and provide training to faculty, students and teaching assistants so they can better recognize, report and desist from behavior that vilifies or compromises the education of students based on their Jewish identity. “No student at Johns Hopkins—whether in a science or humanities course— should have to wonder if her grades are suffering because of her religious or ethnic identity,” the July letter said.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Johns Hopkins Fails to Publicly Condemn or Address Teaching Assistant’s Poll on How to Grade ‘Zionists’ Brandeis Center and StandWithUs Demand Action (Baltimore, MD – July 14, 2021) – After more than six months and no public action by Johns Hopkins University to address its teaching assistant’s overtly anti-Semitic posts, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) and StandWithUs demanded in a joint letter that Johns Hopkins University leadership finally publicly affirm that any attempt by faculty or staff to harass, marginalize, or discriminate against Jewish students based on their Jewish identity will not be tolerated. The Johns Hopkins teaching assistant in question posted a series of antisemitic online statements last Fall that both encouraged students to turn against Zionist peers and targeted Zionist students for discriminatory treatment. On November 15, 2020, she tweeted, “[E]thical dilemma: if you have to grade a Zionist students [sic] exam, do you still give them all their points even though they support your ethnic cleansing? like idk.” Her tweet was in the form of a poll, asking respondents to choose between “yes rasha. be a good ta” and “free palestine! fail them.” Ms. Anayah’s discriminatory conduct targeting Jewish pro-Israel students was not limited to this single instance. On November 20, 2020, Ms. Anayah tweeted, “we had an undergrad in lab who had been on birthright and had one of the street signs to tel aviv on her laptop. it stabbed me every time she opened it. if i had been paired to one of them or one of these conceited white boys i would have lost it.” In another November 20 tweet, Ms. Anayah said, “y’all allah looking out for me. the majority of undergrads in chem here are white and i was blessed enough to be paired w a black woman to mentor who has good race analysis. didn’t get pinned with an israeli or some b**ch white boy to have to share my knowledge with. alhamdulilah.” Later that same day, Ms. Anayah added, “alhamdulilah for the opportunity to give to students who actually deserve it.” Although the university informed SWU that it has concluded its investigation, it has remained silent on its institutional response and failed to condemn publicly any of the TA’s conduct, citing privacy laws. LDB and StandWithUs’ letter informed Johns Hopkins that privacy laws do not shield the university from its obligation to protect Jewish students, prevent a hostile campus climate for Jewish students, and deter similar acts of antisemitic discrimination and harassment. At a minimum, this should include an official public statement by Johns Hopkins. “No student should wonder if they are being targeted for discrimination by faculty, staff, or other students because of their Jewish identity,” said Roz Rothstein, StandWithUs CEO and Co-Founder. “Students who find themselves in this position are being deprived of an equal opportunity to participate in their university’s educational environment. Johns Hopkins not only can do more but must do more to show that there is zero tolerance for antisemitism and bias against Jews on campus.” “Johns Hopkins needs to do more than protect its TA,” said Rachel Lerman, Vice Chair and Senior Counsel at The Louis D. Brandeis Center. “Civil rights laws and the University’s own mandate require the University to publicly recognize the anti-Semitic nature of the TA’s conduct, reject it in no uncertain terms, and make clear that anti-Semitism is not countenanced on campus. These are the types of steps taken by other universities (e.g., Michigan and UIUC) to eliminate anti-Semitism from their academic communities. Johns Hopkins should follow suit.” When the anti-Semitic posts were first exposed, the Brandeis Center and StandWithUs urged JHU to swiftly and publicly address and condemn the anti-Semitic incidents, and suggested remedies to deter future acts of harassment and discrimination. Some of the remedies included removing Ms. Anayah from her position; issuing a public statement declaring JHU’s support for the JHU students targeted by Ms. Anayah; condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism; incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism into Johns Hopkins Discrimination and Harassment Policy and Procedures; and providing appropriate training on anti-Semitism to university administrators, faculty, staff and students. About StandWithUs StandWithUs (SWU) is an international, non-profit and non-partisan Israel education organization that works to inspire and educate people of all ages about Israel, as well as challenge misinformation and fight against antisemitism. Through university fellowships, high school internships, middle school curricula, conferences, materials, social media, educational films and missions to Israel, StandWithUs supports people around the world who want to educate their schools and communities about Israel. Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Los Angeles, the organization has chapters and programs on 5 continents, including the U.S., Israel, UK, Canada, South Africa and Brazil. For the last 8 years, SWU has consistently received the highest possible ratings from Charity Navigator (4 stars) and Guidestar (Platinum). www.standwithus.com and www. facebook.com/standwithus and www.twitter.com/standwithus and www.instagram.com/standwithus About The Louis D. Brandeis Center The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc., or LDB, is an independent, nonprofit organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. The Brandeis Center conducts research, education, and advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses. It is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.
The Jewish Press ~ By Rabbi Mark N. Wildes ~ (Jewish Press – July 14, 2021) Any time you stand between the Capitol and the Washington Monument, sharing an afternoon with thousands of Jews, you can’t help but have feelings of pride. At the same time, it is sad that we need a rally in 2021 because Jews are being attacked. I give a lot of credit to the organizers, specifically Elisha Wiesel, whose father taught us that to remain silent in the face of injustice is criminal. Would I have liked there to be more people there? Of course. But the rally was organized very quickly and the Jewish summer camps had Covid restrictions preventing them from attending. Standing in that spot, I could not help but think back to December of 1987 when I helped bring 14 buses full of students from Yeshiva University to Washington D.C. for the rally for Soviet Jewry. With approximately 250,000 people in attendance, it was the largest Jewish rally ever held in Washington. Those were different times, with more time to organize and no Covid. It was important to have a rally today to show that it is not acceptable for Jews anywhere to be attacked. It’s hard to say exactly how many people were there; likely between three and five thousand. The crowd was solid and listened to every word even in the heat with no shade. It was encouraging to see young Jewish leaders speaking out unapologetically in a way that was pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. I was especially impressed with Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, and with Blake Flayton of the New Zionist Congress. Both spoke about how universities have failed Jewish students. Flayton mentioned that when organizations call out anti-Semitism, they feel the need to apologize. He noted there are people who cloak anti-Semitism as fighting for social justice and challenged the tacit approval of anti-Semitism by those who remain silent. Would I have liked to see more politicians there – since we were in their backyard? Yes, but most were on recess and thankfully there were both Republican and Democratic speakers. It is essential that protesting anti-Semitism and support for Israel remain bipartisan. It was also great to see some non-Jewish speakers like Joshua Washington, who heads the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel, and Meghan McCain. It is heartwarming to see that we are not alone in this fight and there are people on our side who are not Jewish. The Torah teaches, “Lo ta’amod al dam re’echa” (Do not stand idly by when the blood of another Jew is spilled). We must stand up for ourselves and we must stand up for Israel. It was also important that many of the speakers noted that Israel is used as an excuse for anti-Semitism. Israel is attacked by Hamas rockets, Israel defends herself and then Jews in New York are attacked. Each Jew is responsible for another, a Jewish teaching that our enemies reinforce by attacking a Jew in New York when they don’t like or agree with something Israel does 6000 miles away. I brought about 15 people from New York to the rally, and it was inspirational for us to hear from Rabbi Shlomo Noginski, the Chabad rabbi from Brighton, Mass., who was recently stabbed eight times. Thank G-d he was well enough to make the trip and speak as beautifully as he did. He made sure to keep the attacker away from 100 children that were nearby, and likely prevented what could have been a massacre. For anyone who says rallies are not effective, I would ask them what they’re doing otherwise. Remaining silent and doing nothing is not a Jewish option. We have a responsibility to do something and to speak up. In the Soviet Jewry days, there were those who went to rallies and those who chose quiet diplomacy. But you have to pick one. Rallies – if well attended – show that people care and ensure that the Jewish community is taken seriously. Obviously, I would prefer bigger crowds but what we have in our arsenal today that we didn’t in 1987 is a way to magnify our presence through social media. Millions around the world can see the rally without traveling to Washington. Many posted the rally on social media and countless others saw the rally on their phones. Hate against Jews is becoming acceptable and we simply cannot allow it. We must call out anti-Semitism wherever and whenever we see it. Our enemies want to scare and divide us and we must show them that whether we are Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, chasidic or any other affiliation – we are one and will not sit back and remain silent. Together, we will rise to the occasion and fight the disease of anti-Semitism. Rabbi Mark N. Wildes Rabbi Mark N. Wildes is the founder and director of Manhattan Jewish Experience. His new book is “The 40 Day Challenge: Daily Jewish Insights To Prepare For The High Holidays,” published by Kodesh Press.