Watch Alyza at the #NoFearRally here! ~ Alyza D. Lewin Remarks ~ No Fear Rally in Solidarity with the Jewish People Washington, DC, July 11, 2021 Good afternoon. I am Alyza Lewin, President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. I’m here today with these extraordinary students because today, Jews are being pressured to shed what makes them Jewish. Jews are being told that the price for admission to social and racial justice movements is that they must deny their history, abandon their people, and disavow their homeland. That is anti-Semitism. Judaism is more than a religion. Jews share not only a common faith, but also a sense of Jewish peoplehood and a deep connection to the Land of Israel. For many Jews, solidarity with Israel is integral to their Jewish identity. We express our Judaism in many different ways. But no one should ever be harassed, marginalized or dehumanized for expression of their Jewish identity. Standing in the shadow of the Capitol, we take pride in knowing that America values diversity and has laws that protect Jews against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and national / ethnic origin. As President of the Brandeis Center, I speak nearly each and every day to university students who are experiencing this type of anti-Semitic discrimination. Students who express support for Israel are being ridiculed, labelled as “racist,” ostracized and excluded from university clubs and positions in student government. They are made to feel ashamed for taking pride in their Jewish heritage. When Jews celebrate the fact that there is a country where the national calendar is the Jewish calendar, where Jews are free to practice their faith with pride, where Hebrew is the spoken language, and where Jews today can walk on the same stones that the ancient Hebrews and King David walked on centuries ago – When Jews take pride in all that the Jewish state of Israel contributes to the world, in the areas of medicine, agriculture, cyber, high tech, science – and humanitarian aid – that has nothing to do with the Arab – Israeli conflict. It is an expression of Jewish ethnic pride. The ancient Jewish People were the first to understand that all human beings are created in God’s image. We taught the world that all humanity is created equal. Social justice ideals began with Judaism. That is why Jews have historically led the organizations that strive for equal justice and dignity for all. But today, Jews are finding themselves excluded from these movements. Why? Because they take pride in their Jewish heritage. A world that cannot appreciate Jews, is a world that does not tolerate difference. That is why anti-Semitism is not a Jewish problem, it is everyone’s problem. For the health of our society, this must stop now. Say it with me – This must stop now. Whether you are Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrachi, or a Jew of Color, Chiloni or Chareidi, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist, a Jew by birth or a Jew by choice, we must remember that we are all Am Yisrael – the People of Israel – and Eretz Yisrael is our homeland. We must stand proud. We must speak loud. To those who seek to divide and destroy us, we say “Am Yisrael Chai” – the People of Israel Live. To those who try to shame us, we stand proud and say, “Am Yisrael Chai” Say it with me – Am Yisrael Chai! Say it louder – Am Yisrael Chai! Say it prouder – Am Yisrael Chai! One more time – Am Yisrael Chai! Thank you.
LDB Holds Stanford Accountable For Anti-Semitism In DEI Program And Responds To The Gaza Conflict – July Brandeis Brief Last month the Center filed a federal complaint against Stanford University on behalf of two Jewish mental health care providers after concerns about anti-Semitism in staff diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings were left unaddressed by the university. The timing could not have been worse for a university to ignore anti-Semitism. As this month’s Brandeis Brief also shows, the recent Gaza conflict has spurred another huge spike in anti-Jewish incidents. Kenneth L. Marcus urges President Joe Biden to take a firmer stance on anti-Semitism and religious freedom. Similarly, Alyza D. Lewin urges the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism in its entirety, emphasizing the importance of its examples. Also this month, LDB’s Summer Speakers Series continued with insightful legal analysis from leading legal experts Mark Rotenberg and Professor Oren Gross about some of the most pressing legal issues recently faced by students and professors on campus. As always, we thank you for your tax deductible donations and acknowledge that without you our work could not be done. Complaint filed against Stanford University for disregarding antisemitism concerns Melissa Weiss, Jewish Insider Two Stanford mental health counselors represented by the Brandeis Center filed a federal complaint last month with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charging Stanford with ignoring anti-Semitism and fostering a hostile environment for Jewish staff in one of its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The case demonstrates why DEI programs must be professionalized and skillfully administered in order to prevent them from perpetrating the invidious discrimination they were intended to eliminate. Read more here. “In Biden administration’s defense of religious freedom, ‘adequate’ is not enough” Kenneth L. Marcus, Washington Times Kenneth L. Marcus explores the ramifications of the Biden Administration’s reversal on a formal pledge to “vigorously” defend religious freedom. He also highlights the administration’s gaffe as a worrying example of mainstream institutions caving to political pressure to revise laudable statements. Read more here. Time for Biden to issue an executive order on antisemitism Kenneth L. Marcus, The Hill In the wake of a surge of anti-Semitism linked to the Gaza conflict, Marcus urges President Biden to do more than just the bare minimum to combat anti-Semitism, including issuing an executive order and establishing a dedicated inter-agency task force to address the issue. Read more here. Alyza D. Lewin speaks at SSI conference on the importance of IHRA and its examples Nathaniel Berman, Brandeis Blog At a recent presentation for Students Supporting Israel’s “Define it to Fight it” online conference, Alyza D. Lewin discussed the importance of adopting the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism in its entirety in the face of calls by critics to omit the 11 examples it employs. Many of those examples highlight the ways in which contemporary anti-Semitism is linked to the denial of the Jewish right to self-determination and the demonization of Israel. Read more here. The International Legal Forum discusses ancient Jew-hatred in modern times Chloe Shrager, Brandeis Blog Alyza D. Lewin appeared on an expert panel hosted by the International Legal Forum to speak on the modern day mutations of ancient anti-Semitism. Lewin provided detailed analyses on how the most recent wave of anti-Zionist anti-Semitism sparked by the Gaza conflict differs from past waves, and how the global Jewish diaspora can combat it by coming together and proudly proclaiming Jewish identity in the face of anti-Zionism. Read more here. A Chance to Right a Wrong Decision Diane B. Kunz Professor Diane B. Kunz addresses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Judicial Circuit to allow a rehearing in a case that partially struck down Arkansas’ anti-Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) law. Since it was passed in 2017, the law faced challenges by pro-BDS groups who claimed it violated their First Amendment rights. Kunz argues that that contention hinges on a misinterpretation of the law. Read more here. Recognizing Anti-Zionist Anti-Semitism Russell Shalev, Brandeis Blog Russell Shalev, an Israeli lawyer at the International Legal Forum (ILF), writes about the rise in anti-Semitism—which amounted to a 75% increase in the United States—following the most recent Gaza conflict. The ILF recently released a comprehensive guide for policymakers entitled “Recognizing Anti-Zionist Antisemitism.” Shalev discusses the history of anti-Semitism and its undeniable ties to anti-Zionism. Despite Jews being just one of many groups defending their right to self-determination, he argues, “the Jewish national movement, is singled out, falsely condemned as racist, and delegitimized.” In order to effectively combat anti-Semitism, Shalev suggests concrete measures involving better training on what constitutes anti-Semitism and increased cooperation with legal authorities. Read more here. A Victory for Campus Freedom Diane B. Kunz, Brandeis Blog Professor Diane B. Kunz explains the judicial vindication of Fordham University’s decision to prevent Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) from registering as an official campus organization. Fordham refused SJP’s claims to recognition on the grounds that the organization is “affiliated with a national organization reported to have engaged in disruptive and coercive actions on other campuses.” After a five-year battle in the New York court system, Fordham prevailed in what Kunz describes as a “win for campus freedom.” Read more here. Top Hillel lawyer explains how anti-Zionist professors violate academic freedom Samantha Crane, Brandeis Blog As part of LDB’s summer speaker series, Hillel’s Mark Rotenberg explains the relationship between “Academic Freedom and The Fight Against Anti-Semitism.” Rotenberg gives a thorough explanation of the concerning rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism plaguing campuses across the country. Rotenberg also details efforts to connect the United States racial injustice narrative with the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas. Read more here. LDB Summer Speaker Series features Attorney Mark Rotenberg Watch here. Summer Speaker Series with Professor Oren Gross Brandeis Blog Professor Oren Gros s has stepped forward to explain his resignation from the university’s Center for Jewish studies following their “deafening silence” on the recent Israeli defense against Hamas’s rocket campaign. He also offered advice to attending students and professors on how to initiate conversations about Israel on their own campuses. Read more here. Professor Oren Gross discusses modern antisemitism and his resignation from his university’s Center for Jewish Studies Watch here. Call for Papers for the “Law vs. Antisemitism” Conference Sarah Engelman, Brandeis Center The conveners of the “Law vs. Antisemitism” conference have asked the Brandeis Center to share a Call for Papers with our readers. The conference will be held on campus and virtually at IU McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis, Indiana on March 13-14, 2022. The deadline to submit papers is August 1, 2021. Read more here. Brandeis Center Welcomes Summer Interns Brandeis Center This summer, the Brandeis Center welcomes four interns: Nathaniel Berman, Samantha Crane, Joni Rosenberg, and Chloe Shrager. They have hit the ground running, providing valuable contributions to this Brandeis Brief and will continue to add to the Brandeis Center’s work. Read more here.
JNS.org ~ By Ida R. Eblinger Kelley ~ (July 8, 2021 / JNS) The Jewish community and its supporters will come to Washington, D.C., on July 11 to participate in the “No Fear” rally against anti-Semitism. At the footsteps of the U.S. Capitol, this is the time to demand our civil and human rights in the fight against anti-Semitism. This will be a rare moment where Jews will have the national and global stage, and we must use this opportunity wisely. The rally must go beyond raising awareness; it is our opportunity to demand that the Biden administration address and arrest the fast-spreading mass-scale anti-Semitism that is infecting all sectors of our lives—in our workplaces, schools, colleges, places of worship, social media, in retail and entertainment establishments, on the streets and even at vacation destinations. As often said, anti-Semitism is the world’s oldest and most tolerated form of racism. The Jewish community needs U.S. President Joe Biden to bring anti-Semitism out of the shadows and into public attention. This past May, Biden made an important first step by nationally renouncing anti-Semitism. But it didn’t go far enough. His statement did not acknowledge its widespread, insidious nature. Flagrant discrimination and intolerance against Jews have skyrocketed, and civil-rights violations have been an issue for years at North American colleges. His statement only acknowledged the rise of hate in May 2021, as a result of Israel’s conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The federal government’s role is to protect our human and civil rights. I expect both the Republican and Democratic parties to adhere to these principles. I expect Biden to leverage his leadership and not just call out anti-Semitism from the right, but from the left and center as well. We need to hold the federal government accountable and demand action. Our biggest challenge as a Jewish community is that anti-Semitism has evolved over the past several decades. It looks and feels different. The 21st century reflects a new era of Jew-hatred that the government needs to clearly and directly acknowledge and squash. Both classical and contemporary forms of anti-Semitism are not well understood, and as a result, not acknowledged. Last month in The Hill, Kenneth Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and former Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, called for an executive order to combat anti-Semitism at home and abroad. Everything he lists is important, including assigning high-ranking administration leaders to this effort to ensure interagency coordination, and that it “should include proactive enforcement initiatives to address anti-Semitism on college campuses and in the public schools.” Of course, the Jewish community is still waiting on the president to fill the vacancy of the ambassador rank of the special envoy for anti-Semitism. Beyond what Marcus outlines, I detail four action items the administration should do to ensure that the fight against anti-Semitism is effective. First. A critical step is that the Biden publicly acknowledge and rely on the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism and the examples provided across its efforts related to anti-Semitism. The United States as a member of IHRA adopted this definition during the last year of the Obama administration, along with 30 other nations, many which were directly involved in the Holocaust or were complicit through apathy or denying Jews refuge. Although not legally binding, this set the international standard for understanding what anti-Semitism is, and provides institutions and organizations, such as governmental and educational agencies, an much-needed official resource. More importantly, however, the administration needs to pay close attention and explicitly identify IHRA’s 11 examples of contemporary anti-Semitism, coupled with explanations of anti-Semitic discrimination and criminal acts. (I urge you to review them here.) The IHRA list is powerful precisely because it directly acknowledges the vast majority of anti-Semitic activity Jews in the United States face, from both the right, left and mainstream. Second. The administration cannot let foreign affairs dictate silence on anti-Semitism, particularly from the left. As the May spike illustrates, anti-Israel sentiment is closely tied to anti-Semitic rhetoric and hateful actions. During his campaign, Biden acknowledged that the BDS movement “singles out Israel and too often veers into anti-Semitism,” and that he would “fight other efforts to delegitimize Israel on the global stage.” This is in line with one of the IHRA examples that states: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is anti-Semitic. The Biden administration must state that Israel’s existence as a sovereign nation is non-negotiable. It is a thriving democratic nation with a strong innovative economy, in which its citizens have civil and human-rights protections under law. It is the sole democracy in the Middle East. To allow the ongoing questioning of Israel’s right to exist undermines its very existence. And sadly, it feeds contemporary anti-Semitism. Third. We need the State Department envoy on anti-Semitism in place immediately. We need an official and an empowered voice that represents the U.S. government to call out anti-Semitism from wherever it emerges and spearhead efforts to combat it. Anti-Semitism demands distinct recognition, programming, policy and leadership at the domestic and international federal level. International and national data supports this. The rapid escalation of global anti-Semitism through physical violence, workplace and school-based discrimination, gross mischaracterizations in mainstream media coverage and via the volume of hateful social-media posts and comments warrants immediate action. Fourth. Biden’s domestic efforts must not treat anti-Semitism and Holocaust remembrance as solely a Jewish issue. We cannot address all hate and discrimination without concurrently addressing anti-Semitism; they are inextricably linked. All efforts related to hate, discrimination and civil rights must include and address anti-Semitism’s role in policy, accountability, and outreach and prevention efforts within the entire spectrum of stakeholders. Biden announced at the start of his administration that the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) would laser in on racial justice and equity. DPC director Susan Rice acknowledged that her office would also focus on outreach and efforts to ethnic and religious minorities, of which Jews constitute both. In the United States alone, the statistics are alarming. The ADL reports that 60 percent of American Jews have witnessed an anti-Semitic instance in May, and that rates of harassment and incidents towards Jews doubled from one year ago. And that’s after more than 30 years of FBI data that demonstrate Jews and Jewish institutions are the leading victims of religious hate. And the reality is every type of anti-Semitism is underreported. And since 2015, there have been 3,500 anti-Semitic documented incidents at American colleges and universities, according to the Amcha Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to tracking and combating anti-Semitism at American institutions of higher education. Under the guise of free speech and academic freedom, universities across the country allow its professors and students to create hostile learning environments for Jews. Agencies on the domestic front, such as Education, Homeland Security, Labor, Justice (which includes the FBI), Health and Human Services, and more need to understand what anti-Semitism looks like. Agencies tasked with protecting civil rights and prosecuting discrimination and hate crimes need to understand the complexities of modern-day anti-Semitism; otherwise, we will not make progress. The administration places a heavy emphasis on “public engagement,” which is what it sounds like—to interact with stakeholders and have ongoing meaningful conversations about policy issues. When it comes to anti-Semitism, the administration and executive branch need to communicate with local and state agencies, in addition to employers, schools and universities, and get then involved. The message must include that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated and refer to the IHRA definition. The administration needs to educate and empower parents, students, schools, employees, and civic and business leaders to identify and report all forms of hate, which can even come in the form of harassment or bullying. Concurrently, the administration needs to focus on prevention through outreach and tangible products, events and resources that families, employers, law enforcement, schools and universities can leverage such as guidance and fact sheets, informative social-media posts and even old-fashioned webinars with national experts. The federal government needs to help leaders across sectors understand how to create inclusive, welcoming environments for all. Ida R. Eblinger Kelley is a retired federal communications and outreach executive in education and health care in Washington, D.C. Later, she served as deputy director of the Nixon Presidential Library in Orange County, Calif., where she currently resides. As a child of Cuban-Jewish immigrants, she dedicated her academic and professional career to empowering the disenfranchised.
We need YOUR help to spread the word and encourage others to attend – copy and paste this information and share by email or social media! Learn more and sign up at nofearrally.org NO FEAR: A Rally in Solidarity with the Jewish People Sunday, July 11, 1:00-3:30 PM Anti-Semitism isn’t taking a summer vacation. So neither can we. On July 11 in Washington, D.C, Alliance for Israel, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, B’nai Brith International, the Israel Forever Foundation, Jewish National Fund USA, Hadassah, Combat Antisemitism Movement, the Orthodox Union, the Rabbinical Assembly, USCJ, World Jewish Congress – North America, and Union for Reform Judaism are organizing “NO FEAR: A Rally in Solidarity with the Jewish People.” It is time for the Jewish people and our allies to speak out against antisemitism with the many voices in our resilient community. Elisha Wiesel will speak, as will victims of antisemitism and leaders across the denominational and political spectrum. Our tent is big. We welcome all Zionist, Jewish organizations, and allies. If you believe we have a right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish people both here in the United States and in Israel, then you belong with us. SECURITY WILL BE PRESENT To register for the rally, click here. “We here at the Brandeis Center are thrilled to co-sponsor the #NoFearRally on July 11th in Washington DC! Join us to stand in solidarity with the Jewish people and send a message that there is no place for hate. The rally is organized by @anti.defamation.league, @AJCGlobal, @alliance4israel, @bnaibrithinternational, @jewishnationalfund, @CombatAntiSemitism, @Hadassah, @IsraelForeverFoundation, @OrthodoxUnion, @World Jewish Congress North America, @RabbinicalAssembly, @URJorg, @StandWithUs, @UnitedSynagogueCJ, @RJC, @USJewishDems, @birthright, @jfederations, @MercazUSA, @IFCMW, @UJAfedNY Learn more and sign up at nofearrally.org” Supporting sponsors include: Action for Post-Soviet Jewry, A Wider Frame, Alpha Epsilon Pi, Alums for Campus Fairness, AMCHA Initiative, Americans United with Israel, Ansche Chesed, Baltimore Zionist District, Beth El of Montgomery County, Birthright, B’nai B’rith Connect, ChallahBack Girls, Chosen to Speak Up, Club Z, Creative Community for Peace, Endowment for Middle East Truth, End Jew Hatred, Fifth Ave Synagogue, Fuel for Truth, Hasbara Fellowships, Hillel International, Humans4Humanity, IBIS, Iraqi Christian Relief Council, ISGAP, Israel Bonds, Jewish Future Pledge, Jewish National Fund, JCRC Detroit, JIMENA, Never Again is Now, Kehillat Jeshurun, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, LSS Synagogue, Maccabee Task Force, MD Republican Jewish Council, National Coalition Supporting Eurasian Jewry, New Zionist Congress, National Coalition Supporting Eurasian Jewry, NC Coalition for Israel, NY Board of Rabbis, Organization for Chinese Americans (DC), Rabbinic Council of America, RI Coalition for Israel, SHIN-DC, StandWithUs, Students Supporting Israel, Terps for Israel, The Carlebach Shul, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, The Rimon Movement, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, WIZO, World Jewish Congress, WSIS, Yad Yamin-Philadelphia, Yad Yamin-New York, Zioness, Zionist Rabbinic Coalition, ZOA Security protocols The organizers enjoy the full support of the Capitol Police and the US Park Police, who have both committed an extraordinary amount of resources for the event in their respective jurisdiction. They both have considerable additional resources of their own on standby in the unlikely event that they are needed, as well as those of the D.C. Metropolitan Police. And beyond that, the organizers retained a private security firm made up entirely of former U.S. Secret Service agent. The head of their Washington office also worked the U.S. Capitol area for many years and the head of the firm was in in charge of President Bill Clinton’s entire presidential protective detail. Their firm provided all of Pres. Biden’s personal security between the time he became a candidate and when he received official USSS protection.
Jewish Link ~ by Chana Fischer, July 2, 2021 ~ When native New Yorker David Benger was a law student at Harvard, his eyes were opened to a shocking world of outright discrimination. While serving as chapter president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights, Benger worked with countless undergraduate students, as young as 17 and 18 years old, who all had one thing in common: They were being outed and shamed for their Jewish identity. “These kids were constantly getting smacked in the face with ‘Israel is an apartheid state,’ and ‘How dare you wear a Magen David,” he said. “That’s when I decided I needed to be a vocal advocate for Zionist causes.” Benger’s online Jewish advocacy work began in an academic context. While working on a book project about contemporary antisemitism in progressive spaces, he decided to join Twitter to get a sense for what was out there in the modern Zionist world and the challenges that advocates were facing online. It was on Twitter where Benger was able to interact with other Zionist “influencers” and interview them about their work and experiences being pushed out of progressivism for being Zionist—which, Benger explains, is a thinly veiled excuse for antisemitism. His social media activity inspired him to begin writing about the same issues—in the past year, Benger has published two pieces for the New York Daily News and has kept up an active Times of Israel blog. “That’s when I really started getting attention…now I definitely have a more active Zionist voice.” Benger, who tweets under the pseudonym “Louis D. Dice,” paying homage to the former Supreme Court justice, has now attracted nearly 3,000 Twitter followers in his first year. The vast majority of his tweets follow an overarching theme: fighting anti-Zionism and antisemitism using academic sources and accessible information. Benger cited The Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel to be his favorite sources for news about Israel, since “their reporting draws a clear distinction between straight news and editorialized content.” Being a Zionist advocate on social media comes with its obvious trials and debates. Benger recalled one of the most memorable Twitter arguments he was ever involved in was with self-proclaimed civil rights cartoonist Eli Valley, who was putting out drawings that Benger described to be “actual Nazi propaganda.” Benger tweeted Valley’s “disgusting” drawing and called him out for the blatant antisemitism—and when Valley and his followers caught wind of Benger’s tweets, Benger faced terrible slurs and threats. “I don’t regret it though…the more people that draw attention to what a dangerous, propagandist cartoonist he is, the better.” When asked about the overall goal of using social media as a platform for productive discourse, Benger was reminded of one instance that he described as a great example of a favorable outcome. He was contacted via Twitter by a particularly progressive person who was in the process of converting to Judaism and was unsure about their stance regarding Zionism. Benger messaged with this person for a total of seven or eight hours about the history of Israel and the Zionist platform—and in the end, found himself blocked by this person. Benger’s Zionist friends also reported being blocked by this person, who had ultimately decided to align themselves with other anti-Zionist progressives. A few months later, Benger noticed that he was unblocked, and began to receive messages from this person thanking him for the time he spent speaking about the Zionist cause. When Benger asked why, the person explained that he quickly discovered “what kind of crowd” these anti-Zionists are and how much Jew-hatred exists in those circles. Benger explained that this is almost rarely the outcome of online discourse. His advice to those pursuing social media advocacy is to keep in mind that even when it’s clear that someone won’t budge on their opinion, your arguments must still remain rock solid. This is because it’s not about the person you’re arguing with, it’s about the people who are watching the argument unfold. “There have been countless times when I’ve received messages from people saying, ‘I saw your argument with so-and-so, and I didn’t know very much about this issue.’ They ask for more information, and I can educate them and give them recommended reading. It happens all the time.” Benger’s online Zionist advocacy has primarily been on Twitter. He also reported being active on a platform known as “Clubhouse,” which he described as “democratized talk radio.” On Clubhouse, users can host a room and decide who gets to speak and at what time, which makes it the ideal platform for intellectual discussion without interruption. Benger has hosted a plethora of expert briefings on Israel and international law and has remained involved with other sessions on Clubhouse as well. Overall, Benger emphasized that social media advocacy is not without real dangers. “Folks who are brave enough to stand up for Jews have been doxed and threatened. I know people who have had death threats sent to them along with their home addresses. The stakes are really high.” You can follow David Benger at @Dem_Bitz on Twitter. Channa Fischer reports on digital Jewish and Zionist advocacy. She resides in Washington Heights.
The Louis D. Brandies Center invites you to join us this Summer for a series of virtual conversations with thought-provoking educators, scholars and legal minds. 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. Alyza D. Lewin. Kenneth L. Marcus Wednesday, September 1 at 7 pm Eastern. In case you missed it, you can watch our webinar here: Watch the September 1 webinar Denise Katz-Prober Wednesday, July 7th at Noon Eastern: “Law and Jewish Identity” with Professor Lesley Klaff and Dr. Mark Goldfeder Lesley Klaff Lesley Klaff is a senior lecturer in law at the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice, Sheffield Hallam University, Professor [Affiliate] at the University of Haifa, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism She serves on the advisory board of the Louis D Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law and does pro bono work for UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a charitable organisation that uses the law to oppose attempts to delegitimize and attack Israel and its supporters. She has published on a range of issues relating to contemporary antisemitism and her most recent article, “Why the 2010 Equality Act does not make the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism redundant,” was published in Fathom Journal in February 2021. She has recently served as an expert witness on the topic of antisemitism in a disciplinary case before the General Teaching Council of Scotland and is currently acting as an expert witness for the International Legal Forum (ILF) in a case before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. She is currently working on a collaborative project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, on ‘Intersectionality, Misogyny and Online Hate,’ and in 2018 she was named in The Algemeiner’s 5th Annual “J100” List as one of the top 100 people “positively influencing Jewish life. Dr. Mark Goldfeder Dr. Mark Goldfeder is Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. He has served as the founding Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series on Law and Judaism, a Trustee of the Center for Israel Education, and as an adviser to the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations. Goldfeder has taught law around the country and the world as Senior Lecturer at Emory University School of Law, Spruill Family Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, Director of the Restoring Religious Freedom Project, and as a visiting professor at Georgia State University School of Law, Florida Southern College, University of Padua (Italy), Scuola Galileana (Italy), IDC’s Radzyner Law School (Israel) and Bar Ilan Law School (Israel). Goldfeder has taught law classes and legal clinics, ran externship programs, and given CLE courses on anti-Semitism and BDS across the country and at the United Nations. Among other initiatives, some of which are classified, he has represented the President of the United States, advised the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations; presented to the Ministry of Strategic Affairs in Jerusalem; worked with local, state, and federal legislators on measures to fight anti-Semitism; and defended students, professors, businesses, and nonprofits that were targeted for their support of the Jewish State. Professor Oren Gross Watch the June 23, 2021 Webinar Here Professor Gross is the Irving Younger Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School. He is an internationally recognized expert in the areas of international law and national security law Professor Gross holds an LL.B. degree magna cum laude from Tel Aviv University, and LL.M. and S.J.D. degrees from Harvard Law School. He has held visiting positions in numerous leading institutions such as Harvard Law School and Princeton University. Professor Gross has received numerous academic awards and scholarships, including a Fulbright scholarship and British Academy and British Council awards. Professor Gross’s work has been published extensively. His articles appeared in leading academic journals such as the Yale Law Journal, Yale Journal of International Law, Michigan Journal of International Law, Texas International Law Journal, Minnesota Law Review, Florida Law Review, Cornell Law Review and others. His book, Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice, co-authored with Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2006 and was awarded the prestigious Certificate of Merit for Preeminent Contribution to Creative Scholarship by the American Society of International Law in 2007. He also co-edited, with Professor Ní Aoláin, the volume, Guantanamo and Beyond: Exceptional Courts and Military Commissions in Comparative Perspective, which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2013. In 2017, Professor Gross was awarded the Stanley V. Kinyon Tenured Faculty of the Year Award, University of Minnesota Law School. Professor Gross practiced law both in Israel and in New York (where he practiced with Sullivan & Cromwell). In 2008 he joined the American Law Institute as an elected member. Between 1986 and 1991, Professor Gross served as a senior legal advisory officer in the international law branch of the Israeli Defense Forces’ Judge Advocate General’s Corps. In 1998, he served as the legal adviser to an Israeli delegation that negotiated an agreement with the Palestinian Authority’s senior officials concerning the economic component of a permanent status agreement between Israel and Palestine. Attorney Mark Rotenberg Watch the June 9, 2021 Webinar Here Attorney Mark Rotenberg is Vice President of University Initiatives & Legal Affairs at Hillel International. Mark oversees Hillel’s Campus Climate Initiative, working across the U.S. with Hillel professionals and higher education leaders to ensure a campus environment in which every student can feel comfortable learning about and identifying with Judaism and Israel. He also oversees the Israel Fellows Program and the Building Israel Connections Engagement Project (BICEP). Mark has spent most of his professional career on university campuses, serving for many years as the general counsel at the University of Minnesota and at Johns Hopkins University. In those positions, he provided strategic counsel and policy advi ce to university boards, presidents, chancellors and other senior officers. A seasoned university educator, Mark currently is an Adjunct Professor of Law at American University in Washington, has taught at the University of Minnesota for over 20 years, and was a visiting professor of law at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Mark was a partner at Dorsey & Whitney law firm in Minneapolis and special counsel at WilmerHale in Washington, focusing on higher education issues including free speech, campus protests and academic boycotts. He has argued and won cases in the US Supreme Court and many other judicial foru ms. Mark has long been passionately engaged with the Jewish and pro-Israel communities, serving in leadership roles for AIPAC, Camp Ramah, Jewish day schools and synagogues, and has lived in and visited Israel on numerous occasions. Mark received his B.A. from Brandeis University, and J.D., M.Phil., and M.A. from Columbia Law School and Columbia University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. On Wednesday, May 19, 2021, Professors Anne Bayefsky and Abraham (Avi) Bell presented “The Current Crisis, Gaza, Hamas and Durban IV” Watch the webinar video here! Avi Bell is among the world’s leading scholars of international law, economic analysis of law, property, and intellectual property. A Professor at the University of San Diego School of Law and at Bar Ilan University’s Faculty of Law, Bell also serves as a Senior Fellow at the Kohelet Policy Forum and as Dean of the summer program Law, Governance and the Foundations of Democracy in International Perspective, hosted by the Israel Law and Liberty Forum. Prof. Bell is deeply involved in public service and diplomacy, assisting various non-profit organizations with training, legal advice, and strategic direction, and he has consulted with and given testimony to officials and committees of parliaments, governments and international organizations on six continents. Recently, Prof. Bell represented Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in proceedings before Israel’s Attorney General regarding issues of freedom of speech and the criminal law. Prof. Bell is the outgoing president of the Israel Law and Economics Association, he sits on the Board of Directors of NGO Monitor, and he has served in a voluntary capacity on the boards of, or in executive roles for Corridori Atlantici (Atlantic Corridors), CAMERA/Presspectiva, and Stand With Us. Prof. Bell received his B.A. and J.D. with honors from the University of Chicago, and his doctorate from Harvard University, where he researched the economics of eminent domain law. During his studies, he was awarded a number of prizes and fellowships, including an Olin Law and Economics Fellowship and a Fulbright grant for legal studies in Israel. Prior to entering academia, Prof. Bell clerked for Justice Mishael Cheshin of the Supreme Court of Israel, and he practiced law for the administrative law department of Israel’s State’s Attorney and for an Israeli commission on the legal rights of persons with disabilities. He also worked for the Boston law firm of Foley Hoag and the New York firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Anne Bayefsky is an international human rights lawyer and the Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, as well as the President of Human Rights Voices. She represented the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists at the 2001 UN Durban conference, and has served on Canadian and NGO delegations to UN bodies in New York, Geneva, and elsewhere. She is the author or editor of 11 books in the field of human rights. On May 12, 2021, Professor Alexander Tsesis spoke on “American Incitement Law and the Long Memory of Hatred.” Alexander Tsesis is the Raymond & Mary Simon Chair in Constitutional Law and Professor of Law at the Loyola University in Chicago. Tsesis’s most recent book is Free Speech in the Balance (Cambridge University Press 2020). His previous books include: Constitutional Ethos: Liberal Equality for the Common Good (Oxford University Press 2017) and For Liberty and Equality: The Life and Times of the Declaration of Independence (Oxford University Press 2012). His previous books include We Shall Overcome: A History of Civil Rights and the Law (Yale University Press 2008), The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom (New York University Press 2004), and Destructive Messages: How Hate Speech Paved the Way for Harmful Social Movements (New York University Press 2002). He also edited a collection of essays in Promises of Liberty (Columbia University Press 2010). The subjects of his articles range from cyber speech, constitutional interpretation, civil rights law, and human rights. They have appeared in a variety of law reviews across the country, including the Boston University Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Minnesota Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Southern California Law Review, University of Illinois Law Review, and Vanderbilt Law Review. Tsesis’s scholarship focuses on a breadth of subjects, including constitutional law, civil rights, constitutional reconstruction, interpretive methodology, free speech theory, and legal history. Attorney Nathan Lewin was LDB’s first speaker featured on April 21st. Watch Mr. Lewin’s “Where is the Supreme Court Headed on Religious Liberty?” webinar here! Nathan Lewin is a cofounder and partner in Lewin & Lewin, LLP, where he engages in trial and appellate litigation in federal and state courts. Mr. Lewin has been listed in Best Lawyers in America since its first editions and was included in “Washington’s Best 75 Lawyers” in the April 2002 Washingtonian magazine. He has taught at Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, Georgetown, and George Washington universities. Mr. Lewin has served as president of the American Section of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and as President of the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington.
The Hill ~ By Kenneth L. Marcus, Opinion Contributor — June 22, 2021, 08:00pm ET 490 With antisemitic incidents surging in the wake of the Gaza conflict, President Joe Biden issued a forceful condemnation. He tweeted, “The recent attacks on the Jewish community are despicable, and they must stop. I condemn this hateful behavior at home and abroad — it’s up to all of us to give hate no safe harbor.” But that was weeks ago. So now the question is: what is he actually going to do about it? President Biden’s statement was bully-pulpit stuff. The moment calls for action. The Anti-Defamation League found more than 17,000 messages on Twitter using some variation of “Hitler was right” in a week’s time, and the organization that advises U.S. Jewish communities on security recorded an 80 percent spike in antisemitic incidents last month alone. Jews have been physically assaulted in cities from coast to coast. On college campuses, Jewish students are facing a tsunami of hate. The Louis D. Brandeis Center, which supports such students, is overwhelmed with an unprecedented volume of antisemitism reports even as COVID-closed campuses conclude their academic years. Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) introduced a resolution condemning the recent massive increase in antisemitic violence and urging President Joe Biden to combat it. Rosen reports that over half the U.S. Senate has signed on. Other congressmen have written letters to President Biden urging a “united, all-of-government effort” to combat this resurgent bigotry. Unfortunately, these recommendations are not enough. They urge Biden to do little more than what he is already required to do. Nearly everyone urges Biden, as priority No. 1, to nominate a qualified ambassador to monitor and combat global antisemitism. But Biden is already required to do this under the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2019. Moreover, the antisemitism envoy addresses antisemitism overseas. The crisis that we now face is domestic. Senators also urge Biden to advance Holocaust education and counter Holocaust denial. And well he should. But the federal government is also required to do this under the Never Again Education Act. Nearly everyone urges Biden to fund the Nonprofit Security Grant Program of the Department of Homeland Security. This keeps synagogues, schools, and community centers safe from terrorist attack. This too is arguably required. It requires no policy change. President Biden must do all of these things. But he should also do more and soon. After all, Biden has boasted of having “consistently” made “combatting antisemitism, and fighting for social justice pillars of his decades-long career in public service.” Indeed, he campaigned for president on this promise. Biden did not say that he does only the bare minimum to address antisemitism required by federal law. Nor that he would do so only when a crisis, coupled with congressional pressure, makes it impossible for him not to. He said that fighting antisemitism is a “pillar” of his public service. So let us expect from President Biden the boldness that the occasion demands and his campaign promised. To start with, President Biden should issue his own executive order on combating antisemitism. Jewish groups have asked Biden to retain President Donald Trump’s executive order on combating antisemitism. And so he should. But he should also write a new one, and it should be better than Trump’s. Trump’s order codified legal protections for Jewish Americans and adopted the widely-embraced International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Anti-Semitism. This was critical. But not enough. Biden’s order should establish an inter-agency task force to address antisemitism. It should be staffed by a high-level, dedicated White House coordinator. The task force should develop best-practices for addressing antisemitism in academia and the workplace, as well as on the streets. It should include proactive enforcement initiatives to address antisemitism on college campuses and in the public schools. Working with nongovernmental organizations, the task force should craft an analysis of the threat that antisemitism poses to the American people as, to their credit, Rosen and Lankford have also urged. To facilitate this, Biden a should expand the U.S. Education Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection so that it tracks incidents of antisemitic activity. To be clear, President Biden should also follow the other primary recommendations that he has received from Congress and the organized Jewish community. To “give hate no safe harbor,” as Biden put it, requires no less. His administration should indeed improve Holocaust education, strengthen homeland security, and present timely nominations. But that is not enough. We must see from President Biden the vigorous whole-of-government approach that the moment requires, including proactive civil rights enforcement and expanded data-gathering. Kenneth L. Marcus is Founder and Chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. He is served previously as U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (2018-2020), and he is the author of “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.”
The Washington Times “In Biden administration’s defense of religious freedom, ‘adequate’ is not enough,” by Kenneth L. Marcus (The Washington Times) ~ June 21, 2021 ~ ANALYSIS/OPINION: In a major gaffe, the Biden-Harris administration announced to a federal court last week that it would “vigorously” defend religious freedom. The next day, in response to LGBTQ advocates, Justice Department lawyers reversed course, submitting a corrected brief that omitted the word “vigorously” and promised instead only that their defense would be “adequate.” This was an ill-considered reversal which the Biden administration must not let stand. Why would any administration think it a mistake to pledge vigorous defense of America’s first freedom, the free exercise of religion? In particular, why would the Biden Justice Department do so just months after Attorney General Garland pledged to the U.S. Senate that “I am a strong believer in religious liberty and there will not be any discrimination under my watch”? The context is an Oregon federal lawsuit that LGBTQ students brought against Suzanne Goldberg, my successor as head of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, to overturn as unconstitutional the exemption that religious colleges enjoy against Title IX regulation. Title IX, the 1972 federal sex discrimination statute, exempts colleges that are “controlled by a religious organization” if adherence would interfere with the institution’s doctrines or practices. LGBTQ advocates have chafed against this exemption especially since 2020’s Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Supreme Court held that sex discrimination encompasses sexual orientation and transgender discrimination. Although the Court has not yet decided whether this rule applies to Title IX, Secretary of Education Miguel Cordona has repeatedly expressed his view that it does. For religious colleges, this makes the Religious Exemption especially important. Christian colleges sought to intervene in the lawsuit, wary the administration might not defend their freedom. The administration resisted, telling Oregon’s federal court that it need not permit the colleges to intervene, since the Department would “vigorously” defend the statutory exemption. The administration might have been sincere. Or they might have said this only to block the involvement of conservative colleges whose views they disdain. Either way, they backed off after facing backlash, committing only that their representation would be “adequate.” The issue is not so much that religious colleges want to violate Title IX. It is rather that they abhor intrusive governmental inquiries and involvement. Religious colleges have been stigmatized for asserting their constitutionally protected free-exercise rights. When the Education Department has listed the beneficiaries of its exemptions, critics castigate the lists as rolls of shame. This is disrespectful to religious institutions. Like secular colleges, they attend to their students’ need for worldly knowledge. Beyond that, they undertake the care of their community’s spiritual development, catering to needs that should not bow to Caesar’s laws. While the Justice Department’s reversal has attracted media attention, its brief contains an even more troublesome remark that has largely escaped notice. The Christian Colleges had expressed their concern that the administration might use pending review of sexual harassment regulations to restrict the Religious Exemption. Troublingly, the administration did not deny this intent. Indeed, they concede that their review of sexual harassment regulations will be “comprehensive.” They say only that the colleges “can only speculate” that the administration “will back away from a full defense” of the Religious Exemption. Unfortunately, everyone else can only speculate about this now too. Even those who do not care about Christian colleges should care about the broader ramification of this shift. To begin with, it reflects a broader pattern of mainstream institutions backing away from laudable statements in the face of political pressure. Consider, for example, the chancellor of Rutgers University-New Brunswick, who last month issued a rather tepid statement opposing anti-Semitism and “all forms of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, xenophobia, and oppression.” The statement responded to the egging of a Jewish fraternity house during a Holocaust remembrance event. When pro-Palestinian activists complained, the chancellor issued a public apology and removed the statement from the university’s active website. The university’s president stepped in, issuing another statement “on hatred and bigotry.” Nevertheless, the message was clear: standing up against religious bigotry requires courage. Not all leaders will resist the backlash. In the context of the Oregon case, Biden officials may be understandably concerned about LGBTQ students. Whether or not it is legally correct that Bostock applies to Title IX, as Mr. Cordona assumes, it is appropriate to express concern for those students who face daily hostility because of their sexual orientation. The deeper danger is that concern for this group of students will distract the administration from the equally important task of protecting persons of faith from the violations our First Amendment is intended to prevent. Whatever their views on policy issues, the Biden administration must defend our constitutional freedoms with more than an “adequate” degree of support. In other words, they must provide more than the bare minimum effort that law and ethics require. We need not expect an embrace of Sen. Barry Goldwater’s famous admonition that “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” But we can hope at least for agreement that “Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” • Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and served as assistant U.S. secretary of education (2018-2020).
The issue is not so much that religious colleges want to violate Title IX. It is rather that they abhor intrusive governmental inquiries and involvement. Religious colleges have been stigmatized for asserting their constitutionally protected free-exercise rights. When the Education Department has listed the beneficiaries of its exemptions, critics castigate the lists as rolls of shame. This is disrespectful to religious institutions. Like secular colleges, they attend to their students’ need for worldly knowledge. Beyond that, they undertake the care of their community’s spiritual development, catering to needs that should not bow to Caesar’s laws. While the Justice Department’s reversal has attracted media attention, its brief contains an even more troublesome remark that has largely escaped notice. The Christian Colleges had expressed their concern that the administration might use pending review of sexual harassment regulations to restrict the Religious Exemption. Troublingly, the administration did not deny this intent. Indeed, they concede that their review of sexual harassment regulations will be “comprehensive.” They say only that the colleges “can only speculate” that the administration “will back away from a full defense” of the Religious Exemption. Unfortunately, everyone else can only speculate about this now too. Even those who do not care about Christian colleges should care about the broader ramification of this shift. To begin with, it reflects a broader pattern of mainstream institutions backing away from laudable statements in the face of political pressure. Consider, for example, the chancellor of Rutgers University-New Brunswick, who last month issued a rather tepid statement opposing anti-Semitism and “all forms of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, xenophobia, and oppression.” The statement responded to the egging of a Jewish fraternity house during a Holocaust remembrance event. When pro-Palestinian activists complained, the chancellor issued a public apology and removed the statement from the university’s active website. The university’s president stepped in, issuing another statement “on hatred and bigotry.” Nevertheless, the message was clear: standing up against religious bigotry requires courage. Not all leaders will resist the backlash. In the context of the Oregon case, Biden officials may be understandably concerned about LGBTQ students. Whether or not it is legally correct that Bostock applies to Title IX, as Mr. Cordona assumes, it is appropriate to express concern for those students who face daily hostility because of their sexual orientation. The deeper danger is that concern for this group of students will distract the administration from the equally important task of protecting persons of faith from the violations our First Amendment is intended to prevent. Whatever their views on policy issues, the Biden administration must defend our constitutional freedoms with more than an “adequate” degree of support. In other words, they must provide more than the bare minimum effort that law and ethics require. We need not expect an embrace of Sen. Barry Goldwater’s famous admonition that “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” But we can hope at least for agreement that “Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” • Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and served as assistant U.S. secretary of education (2018-2020).
Inside Higher Ed ~ By Elizabeth Redden ~ June 16, 2021 – Two Jewish employees of Stanford University’s Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) division filed federal and state complaints alleging a hostile environment for Jewish employees in a diversity, equity and inclusion program created internally for CAPS staff. “We have here a DEI program that was intended to promote and support diversity and inclusion, and what happened in reality is that those goals were undermined and perverted because what they did instead was promote prejudice and bigotry against one group,” said Alyza D. Lewin, the lead attorney for the complainants and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a nonprofit organization focused on defending and advancing Jewish people’s civil rights. “There was a blind spot in this DEI program when it came to Jewish identity,” Lewin said. “It erased Jewish identity. There was no space for these Jewish employees to share their lived experience, to raise their concerns about anti-Semitism. When they tried, they were attacked.” The complaints submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Equal Housing were filed by Ronald Albucher, a staff psychiatrist at CAPS and a clinical associate professor of psychiatry, and Sheila Levin, a former clinical care manager and eating disorder specialist at CAPS. The complaints center on CAPS’ DEI program, established internally as a professional development program to help clinicians better treat students of diverse backgrounds. According to the complaint, CAPS announced in December 2019 that it would begin weekly DEI seminars and also announced the formation of a DEI committee made up of CAPS staff. The names of those committee members are not included in the public versions of the complaints, which are redacted. The complaints allege that “the CAPS DEI program engages in intentional racial segregation through race-based affinity groups” and it “relies upon racial and ethnic stereotyping and scapegoating by describing all Jews as white or white-passing and therefore complicit in anti-Black racism.” According to the complainants, CAPS staff were divided into two race-based discussion groups who met separately as part of the DEI program — a “whiteness accountability” group and a separate group for people of color. Albucher’s and Levin’s respective complaints allege that Jewish staff were “pressured to attend the DEI program’s racially segregated ‘whiteness accountability’ affinity group, which was created for ‘staff who hold privilege via white identity’ and ‘who are white identified, 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).’” “The DEI committee has also endorsed the narrative that Jews are connected to white supremacy, advancing anti-Semitic tropes concerning Jewish power, conspiracy and control,” the respective complaints allege. “By endorsing an anti-Semitic narrative that designates Jews collectively as ‘oppressors’ and responsible for systemic racism, while simultaneously denying the uniqueness of Jewish ancestral identity, the DEI committee fosters anti-Jewish sentiment and encourages hostility toward Jews (including Dr. Albucher and Ms. Levin).” The complainants also allege that on at least two occasions, the DEI program “knowingly failed to respond to anti-Semitic incidents that occurred on the Stanford campus.” One of those incidents occurred on May 16, 2020, when Zoombombers disrupted a virtual Stanford town hall by displaying pictures of swastikas and weapons and using the N-word. During a CAPS DEI seminar four days later, “DEI committee members addressed the racist and anti-Black content but did not mention anti-Semitism or the anti-Semitic images of swastikas that were displayed during the Zoombombing attack,” according to Albucher’s complaint. When Albucher inquired about the omission, a DEI committee member — whose name is redacted in the version of the complaint publicly released — allegedly “stated, in sum and substance, that the DEI committee decided to omit any mention of anti-Semitism so as not to dominate the discussion about anti-Black racism.” “When Dr. Albucher further expressed his concern about the decision to ignore the issue of anti-Semitism, DEI committee member [name redacted] and others accused Dr. Albucher of trying to derail the agenda’s focus on anti-Black racism,” his complaint alleges. “DEI committee members justified the omission of anti-Semitism by insisting that unlike other minority groups, Jews can hide behind their white identity.” “At this meeting, Dr. Albucher and Ms. Levin were subjected to anti-Jewish stereotypes,” his complaint states. “Participants invoked the anti-Semitic trope that Jews are wealthy and powerful business owners. These DEI committee members reasoned that because Jews, unlike other minority groups, possess privilege and power, Jews and victims of Jew-hatred do not merit or necessitate the attention of the DEI committee.” Stanford’s media relations office declined an interview request but said in a written statement it was investigating the allegations and plans to launch centralized DEI training, which has traditionally been managed by individual campus units. “Stanford is deeply committed to nurturing a diverse and inclusive work environment, one free from harassment and discrimination of any kind,” said Dee Mostofi, Stanford’s assistant vice president for university media relations and communications. “We take complaints of this nature very seriously. We followed our process and have an ongoing investigation into this matter. Stanford forcefully rejects anti-Semitism in all its forms.” “As part of our long-standing commitment to diversity and inclusion, and to ensure consistency in the approach across campus, we are launching a centralized DEI learning program this summer and fall aimed at recognizing and addressing bias and discrimination. The program is designed to build awareness, further establish inclusive behaviors, and foster a more inclusive mindset.” Levin said in an interview that she is concerned about the students CAPS professionals serve. “We’re a mental health clinic and we treat all students, and I wonder with this kind of biased training considering Jews, how it is going to play out if Jewish students came in for services. I have a real worry about that.” Albucher, who directed CAPS for nine years, from 2008 to 2017, said he was disappointed in how the DEI training was handled internally within CAPS. As mental health professionals, he said, “We don’t presuppose we know somebody walking in the door with anxiety or depression that we understand that. We have to do a thorough history, we get to know them as a person — we form a connection with them. These are all skills that people with my group should have, and it seemed like they threw all that out the window — ‘White people go over here, Jews, we don’t know what to do with you, we’re going to put you with the white people.’ I just think we can do so much better than that to get to the goals of DEI, which by the way I completely support.”
PRESS RELEASE ~ Contact: Nicole Rosen 202-309-5724 ~ Stanford Federal Complaint Alleges Anti-Semitic Workplace ~ Washington, D.C., June 15, 2021: Jewish employees at Stanford University have experienced severe and persistent anti-Jewish harassment, according to a complaint filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). See the Stanford case materials here. The complaint, which was announced for the first time today, alleges that Stanford University’s Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) division has created and fostered a hostile and unwelcoming environment for Jews in its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) program, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. “As counselors, we strongly support diversity, equity and inclusion and are mortified that Stanford University has permitted the DEI program to be perverted so that it accomplishes precisely the opposite of its intended aims,” stated Dr. Ronald Albucher and Sheila Levin in their complaint. “The very program that is supposed to facilitate the full inclusion of all members of the Stanford community is now undermining that goal, perpetrating the very invidious discrimination that it is meant to eliminate.” See additional statements by Ron Albucher and Sheila Levin here. Dr. Albucher was the Director of CAPS from 2008-2017. Since 2017 he has worked as a Staff Psychiatrist in CAPS and is also a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Stanford University Medical School. Ms. Levin worked as the Clinical Care Manager/Eating Disorder Specialist at CAPS for the last 13 years. According to the complaint, Stanford’s CAPS DEI program has advanced anti-Semitic tropes concerning Jewish power, conspiracy, and control and endorsed the narrative that Jews support white supremacy and contribute to systemic racism. This narrative is inconsistent with DEI principles and undermines the purposes for which DEI programs are properly developed. The complaint further alleges the DEI program refused to address incidents of anti-Semitism, including swastika vandalism. In addition, the DEI program has completely excluded anti-Semitism from the program’s agenda and silenced and intimidated Jews who have spoken up to challenge the program’s failure to discuss incidents of Jew-hatred at Stanford. For example, in May 2020, during a virtual townhall for the Stanford community, unknown participants hijacked the meeting and shared racist messages that displayed images of swastikas and weapons and used the N-word. This incident caused widespread distress among members of Stanford’s student body due to the racist and anti-Semitic nature of the attack. At the next DEI meeting, DEI committee members addressed the racist and anti-Black content but did not mention the anti-Semitic images of swastikas. When asked about that, the answer was that the DEI committee intentionally decided to omit any mention of anti-Semitism so as not to dominate the discussion about anti-Black racism. This offensive behavior presents staff with the canard that they must choose between opposing anti-Semitism or fighting anti-Black racism. In July 2020, after swastikas were discovered inside Stanford’s Memorial Church, again, the DEI program ignored the incident in its next meeting. In January 2021, during a presentation to pre-doctoral students with information about CAPS internship and training opportunities, one of the presenters discussed a program that will explore how Jews are connected to white supremacy, and another presenter recommended a book that portrays the Jewish State of Israel as a racist endeavor. On another occasion a DEI committee member accused Levin of being racist due to her Jewish identity. In addition, DEI committee members made repeated offensive and derogatory remarks toward Levin and Albucher, invoking classic anti-Semitic tropes, using ethnic and racial stereotypes of Jews as well as insults and put-downs about Jews. For more than a year, Albucher and Levin repeatedly raised concerns to supervisors and Stanford administrators about the harassment they endured on the basis of their Jewish identity and the endemic anti-Jewish hostility in the CAPS DEI program. However, Stanford refused to recognize the problem or take appropriate corrective action to address it. Albucher and Levin are represented by attorneys from the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Alyza D. Lewin, President of the Brandeis Center noted, “The situation at Stanford is especially concerning because the DEI program trains clinicians who provide mental health counseling to Stanford’s student body. According to CAPS’ leadership, the DEI program is designed to ‘help all staff develop[] the skills and confidence to engage with students from different backgrounds.’ However, when the DEI program ignores anti-Semitic incidents on the Stanford campus and spreads the anti-Semitic canard that Jews have ‘immense power and privilege,’ it teaches Stanford’s mental health professionals to disregard the mental health consequences of anti-Semitic incidents. This undermines the therapists’ ability to provide appropriate care to Stanford’s Jewish students.” Anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. have skyrocketed over the past month since hostilities erupted between Palestinians and Israel on May 6. In fact, according to Stanford’s Hillel, a Jewish student reported being told by a classmate, “I’m not going to talk to you, Nazi,” after asking a question about a class assignment. In a separate incident, a student was reported saying, “Don’t talk to me if you’re Jewish.” “We have been deluged with messages from students and professors about incidents of anti-Semitism on campuses across the U.S. It is the worst possible time for Stanford to have decided not to prepare its mental health professionals to deal with this problem,” stated Denise Katz-Prober, Director of Legal Initiatives at the Brandeis Center.