Jewish Journal ~ By Aaron Bandler (March 31, 2021) ~ A Palestinian human rights activist accused the University of Minnesota (UMN) College Democrats of blocking him for expressing support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. Bassem Eid, who is also a political analyst, wrote in a March 30 Times of Israel blog post that the UMN College Democrats had posted an Instagram statement against a campus-wide referendum adopting the IHRA definition, arguing that it silences Palestinians. Eid claimed that he wrote a comment on the Instagram post stating that he’s “a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem. You’re trying to speak on behalf of Palestinians, which is lies. I care about my Jewish brothers and sisters. I support IHRA because it is the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism.” The College Democrat club proceeded to delete his comment and block him, Eid alleged. “Does this sound like a group that cares about Palestinian voices?” Eid wrote. “The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism does NOT silence Palestinians; only the UMN College Democrats do that.” Eid proceeded to argue the UMN College Democrats are out of touch with the Democratic Party as a whole, noting that the Biden administration supports it, as did the Obama administration before him. He also argued that IHRA actually makes it easier to criticize the Israeli government because it provides “a clear distinction between what does and does not cross the line and constitute antisemitism.” Eid concluded his piece urging the UMN College Democrats to reevaluate their position on IHRA and called on the student body to vote in favor of the referendum. Eid told the Journal that after the club deleted his initial comment, he posted the comment again and accused the club of silencing him on their Instagram post. “They deleted my first comment and then when they realized they couldn’t win the debate, they disabled commenting and blocked me.” He sent the Journal the following screenshots: Ultimately, the referendum did pass on March 29. “We have always been grateful to Bassem Eid, a Palestinian, for speaking up about how the boycott movement against Israel harms Palestinians, and we are additionally grateful to him for standing up against those who would taint the IHRA definition of antisemitism,” StandWithUs co-founder and CEO Roz Rothstein said in a statement to the Journal. “Too often, anti-Semites want to retain the right to be antisemitic and are threatened by the passing of a definition that would serve to chill their words as being antisemitic. We commend UMN students for recognizing the need to take a stand against antisemitism and for committing to educate themselves about the discrimination that Jewish people face.” The Stop Antisemitism.org watchdog similarly tweeted, “When this Palestinian man stood up for Jews, anti-Israel extremists silenced him, claiming they know better.” Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said in a statement to the Journal, “There have been numerous reports of anti-Semitic vandalism and harassment deliberately intended to frighten, silence and intimidate UMN Jewish students, similar to what we have seen on too many other campuses. In the face of this social evil, we commend the student body for passing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. It is encouraging to see students having the courage to assume moral leadership and to show the way for administrations to follow.” He added that it is “wrong” to state that IHRA will infringe upon free speech, arguing that “in reality, it is often the free speech of Jewish students that is curtailed by anti-Semitism that is left unaddressed by administrators, just as students with different identities have been silenced by other forms of bigotry. We urge more student bodies and university administrations to follow the leadership displayed by UMN students.” The UMN College Democrats did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.
The Stop Antisemitism.org watchdog similarly tweeted, “When this Palestinian man stood up for Jews, anti-Israel extremists silenced him, claiming they know better.” Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said in a statement to the Journal, “There have been numerous reports of anti-Semitic vandalism and harassment deliberately intended to frighten, silence and intimidate UMN Jewish students, similar to what we have seen on too many other campuses. In the face of this social evil, we commend the student body for passing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. It is encouraging to see students having the courage to assume moral leadership and to show the way for administrations to follow.” He added that it is “wrong” to state that IHRA will infringe upon free speech, arguing that “in reality, it is often the free speech of Jewish students that is curtailed by anti-Semitism that is left unaddressed by administrators, just as students with different identities have been silenced by other forms of bigotry. We urge more student bodies and university administrations to follow the leadership displayed by UMN students.” The UMN College Democrats did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.
Blog by Richard L Cravatts (Times of Israel) ~ March 30, 2021 As the 2016 Internal Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism continues to be adopted by organizations and universities who find it useful as a way of identifying instances of anti-Semitism—and especially the “new anti-Semitism” which couches itself as criticism of Israel—predictably, though unsurprisingly, groups that wish to continue to slander and libel the Jewish state have come out in opposition to it. What bothers these indignant individuals? Possibly the section of the IHRA definition that suggests that “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” is anti-Semitic. While two of the academic groups that published extensive denunciations of the IRHA definition, the Nexus Task Force and The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism, assured us that they are concerned with anti-Semitism that emanates from the far right and white supremacists (the Left’s favorite boogeyman since the election of Donald Trump), their concern for bigotry against Jews apparently ends when Israel is involved in the conversation. A group calling itself the Nexus Task Force, for example, from the Knight Program in Media and Religion USC Annenberg School of Communication & Journalism, created to confront what it calls a “disturbing trend to politicize and exploit antisemitism and Israel is growing in conservative and right-wing political circles,” came up with its own definition, “designed as a guide for policymakers and community leaders as they grapple with the complexities at the intersection of Israel and antisemitism.” The Nexus definition suggests that, contrary to IHRA definition, “criticism of Zionism and Israel, opposition to Israel’s policies, or nonviolent political action directed at the State of Israel and/or its policies should not, as such, be deemed antisemitic,” that “[e]ven contentious, strident, or harsh criticism of Israel for its policies and actions, including those that led to the creation of Israel, is not per se illegitimate or antisemitic,” and that “[p]aying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism.” Soon after, another group of liberal scholars from the fields of Jewish and Israel studies and the Holocaust released something called The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism which attempts to eliminate the part of the IHRA definition pertaining to the virulent BDS movement which, in reality, seeks the destruction of the Jewish state. “Boycott, divestment, and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states,” the Declaration reads. “In the Israeli case, they are not, in and of themselves, anti-Semitic.” Two professors who are endorsers of the Jerusalem Declaration, Dov Waxman from UCLA and Joshua Shanes from the College of Charleston, explained their motives for creating an alternate definition and it reveals what it actually going on here. “[T]he IHRA definition—specifically some of its examples pertaining to Israel,” they wrote, “has been misused to target pro-Palestinian advocacy, especially on college campuses. Scholars, students, activists, and even artists have been branded anti-Semites (even when they are Jewish) for opposing Zionism, advocating for a Palestinian right of return, or promoting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israel.” More specifically, and contradicting the IHRA’s purpose of linking anti-Zionism and calls for the destruction of Israel as being inherently ant-Semitic, these professors object to such accusations, suggesting that “supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and equality, advocating a one-state or binational solution to the conflict, criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or any ‘evidence-based criticism’ of Israel—including comparisons to cases of colonialism or apartheid—are not ‘on the face of it’ anti-Semitic. The same is true of supporting boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel . . . .” It may be comforting for virtue-signaling professors to show their overriding concern for the “Palestinian demand for justice and equality,” but on American campuses, this demand regularly, and relentlessly, manifests itself in toxic, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, often anti-Semitic activism in which the Jewish state and the Jews who support it are vilified as racists, colonialists, occupiers, and militaristic reincarnations of the Third Reich who brutally trample and oppress the indigenous Palestinians and subjugate them in a system of apartheid. The IHRA definition was created exactly to confront these mendacious and toxic accusations, not to suppress so-called “criticism of Israel” or to muffle Palestinian solidarity, but to reveal when this expression and behavior constitutes actual anti-Semitism, as much as critics of the definition wish to parse the words and their meaning. Thus, when the Declaration states that “It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants ‘between the river and the sea,’ whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.,” what it is actually suggesting is that the call for the destruction of Israel, the extirpation of the Jewish sovereignty and its replacement with a new Arab state or some sort of suicidal bi-national state is not anti-Semitic at all, merely part and parcel of normal and acceptable “dialogue” about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Why does the Declaration suggest this? Because it is precisely its authors who are responsible for much of the anti-Israel agitation that leads to these pronouncements and slanders. Student Israel-haters, such as members of the toxic group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), have also joined in the chorus of those not wishing their activism to be called out for what it is—anti-Semitism—at those times when their expression and behavior, based on the IHRA definition, can be judged as such. At its 2018 national conference at UCLA, SJP reiterated its understanding of Zionism, stating that it not only was a destructive political ideology, but that it could, and should, be destroyed. “We know that Zionism is ethnic cleansing, destruction, mass expulsion, apartheid, and death, but it is also something very tangible,” the group announced. “The reason we can have hope is that Zionism is a human ideology and a set of laws that have been challenged and can be destroyed.” The campus enemies of Israel promiscuously repeat this notion that attacking Zionism is not an attack on Judaism, and, as Alyza Lewin, president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, has pointed out, when Jewish students are asked to disavow their Zionism to embrace progressive causes on campuses, they are being asked to deny part of their Jewishness. “To be a Zionist means to support this right of Jewish self-determination in the ancestral homeland of the Jews,” Lewin wrote. “If I celebrate the fact that Jews have returned once again to the Land of Israel, if I celebrate that the Jewish State of Israel exists, then I am a Zionist. Those who oppose Zionism deny Jews this right.” Efforts to define anti-Semitism in a way that incorporates its current appearance in relation to defamation of the Jewish state has been with us for some years now, even before the IHRA definition starting gaining traction. And as is happening now, anti-Israel activists and liberal professors and groups were similarly adamant in resisting any attempt to define their expression and behavior as fundamentally anti-Semitic. In 2016, for instance, a bipartisan Congressional bill, H.R. 6421/S. 10, the “Antisemitism Awareness Act,” took on a long-overdue task, namely, increasing “understanding of the parameters of contemporary anti-Jewish conduct and will assist the Department of Education in determining whether an investigation of anti-Semitism under title VI is warranted.” The Department of Education had been alerted before to the distressing situation of resurgent anti-Semitism on university campuses, but previous evaluations of Title VI violations were imprecise and “did not provide guidance on current manifestation of anti-Semitism, including discriminatory anti-Semitic conduct that is couched as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist.” This was all too much for critics, including the morally tendentious, malignant group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), who immediately condemned the intent of the bill, attaching to a press release two letters with signatures from 60 Jewish Studies “scholars” and some 300 “concerned” Jewish student activists, respectively. Clearly oblivious to the current scourge of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic campus activism (in which they had, not coincidentally, been active and complicit), JVP and these faculty and students derided the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act as misguided and dangerous, not because it provided a tool for finally being able to identify instances where anti-Semitic speech and behavior has infected campus communities, but because they believed, seemingly irrationally, that Jewish students were actual and potential victims, not of Leftist and Muslim student groups (as they clearly and demonstrably are), but of Right-wing extremist groups, emboldened, they contend, by the election of Donald Trump. These perpetrators of anti-Israel agitation had been leading a virulent campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel for years now, and it was astonishing that JVP and these meretricious scholars and students ignored all the factual and shameful chronology (of which they have been central fomenters and cheerleaders in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign), and instead were trying to perpetuate the fantasy that the true threat to Jewish students and other Israel supporters is from the Left’s perennial boogeymen, the lunatic fringe of white power extremists who these willfully-blind activists believe, and want others to believe, were the chief perpetrators of anti-Jewish bigotry. Similarly, in 2014, 40 professors of Jewish studies published a denunciation of a study that named professors who have been identified as expressing “anti-Israel bias, or possibly even antisemitic rhetoric.” While the 40 academic “heavyweights” claimed they, of course, rejected anti-Semitism totally as part of teaching, they were equally repelled by the tactics and possible effects of the AMCHA Initiative report, a comprehensive review of the attitudes about Israel of some 200 professors who signed an online petition during the 2014 Gaza incursion that called for an academic boycott against Israeli scholars—academics the petitioners claimed were complicit in the “latest humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s new military assault on the Gaza Strip.” “We believe the professors who have signed this petition may be so biased against the Jewish state that they are unable to teach accurately or fairly about Israel or the Arab-Israel conflict, and may even inject antisemitic tropes into their lectures or class discussion,” wrote Tammi Rossman-Benjamin and Leila Beckwith, co-founders of the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that tracks incidents of campus anti-Semitism, and authors of the report. Calling “the actions of AMCHA deplorable,” the indignant professors were insulted by the organization’s “technique of monitoring lectures, symposia and conferences,” something which, they believe, “strains the basic principle of academic freedom on which the American university is built.” That is a rather breathtaking assertion by academics; namely, that it is contrary to the core mission of higher education that ideas and instruction being publicly expressed by professors cannot be examined and judged, and that by even applying some standards of objectivity on a body of teaching by a particular professor “AMCHA’s approach closes off all but the most narrow intellectual directions and,” as academics who do not want the content of their output to actually be examined for the quality of its scholarship are always fond of saying, “has a chilling effect on research and teaching.” Can anyone believe that had the AMCHA Initiative or other organization issued a report that revealed the existence of endemic racism, or homophobia, or sexism, or Islamophobia in university coursework, and had warned students who might be negatively impacted to steer clear of courses taught by those offending professors, that these same 40 feckless professors would have denounced such reports as potentially having a negative effect on teaching and learning? No one is telling these toxic Israel-haters to remain silent—or even to not utter anti-Semitic speech. What working definitions such as the IHRA definition and anti-Semitism awareness bills do hope to achieve is to allow those who are pretending only to be anti-Israel but are actually anti-Semitic to be identified as such. The measures are not designed to criminalize or suppress speech, even what we would consider “hate” speech, although going forward Israel-haters may not be able to disguise their anti-Jewish bigotry as successfully as they have when they pretended to care only for the rights of Palestinians and assailed the policies of the Jewish state. It may be inconvenient and even embarrassing for these Israel-haters to finally be named for they are—radical, misguided activists whose unrelenting campaign of vitriol against the Jewish state and its supporters has regularly morphed into pure anti-Semitism—but their efforts to assign the blame to others for the miasma of dark bigotry on campuses they themselves have helped to create shows how crucial such tools as the IHRA definition are, and why its acceptance and use are important to help eliminate, finally, “the oldest hatred” from institutions of higher education. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Richard L. Cravatts, PhD, immediate Past-President of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews and Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel and Jews.
Watch the video featuring Alyza D. Lewin here. The Brandeis Center is thrilled to co-Sponsor the “Define It to Fight It” International Summit on April 11th, 2021! Register to attend this important and informative Summit hosted by @SSI_Movement This is a great opportunity to hear from experts on the topic of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. #DefineItToFightIt #AdoptIHRA Register here to attend: www.defineittofightit.com/attend The summit will be presented through Zoom Webinars. Registration for the event is free and open to anyone – all registrants are required to list a reference, such as your organization or point of contact, in order to attend the summit. The summit website can be found at www.defineittofightit.com The summit speakers can be found at https://www.defineittofightit.com/speakers The summit sponsors can be found at https://www.defineittofightit.com/Sponsors See you on the 11th!
Read the Article Here ~ By Kenneth L. Marcus ~ Special Publication, Contemporary Antisemitism in the United States – collection of articles, March 17, 2021 (INSS – Institute for National Security Studies) The challenge for educational systems in the United States is to address antisemitism both within and through education (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE], 2018). That is to say, educators must teach about antisemitism, but they must also eliminate Jew-hatred from within the institutions themselves. This remains a significant challenge because of the political complexity of modern antisemitism, the difficulty of properly identifying antisemitic incidents, and the divisions within the American Jewish community. Nevertheless, both educators and policymakers must recognize the subject’s unique complexities, well-established definitions, the human rights dimension, and the relationship to both Holocaust education and Jewish studies. Although this should be viewed as an integral aspect of civics, civil rights, human rights, global citizenship, and democratic education, antisemitism must also be viewed as a unique phenomenon, with distinctive characteristics and unusual lethality (Marcus, 2015, pp. 106–119). In recent years, government officials and some university leaders have made important progress in addressing antisemitism, especially on college campuses, but much work remains to be done. Addressing Antisemitism in Higher Education President Joe Biden promised, in his presidential campaign, to undertake a “comprehensive approach to battling anti-Semitism” (Biden, 2020). He was right to do so. To succeed, he must overcome obstacles that have stymied prior efforts: ignorance of the extent and nature of contemporary antisemitism; inability to recognize bigotry on one’s own side of the political spectrum; perceptions that Jewish Americans enjoy white privilege and do not need civil rights protections; and failure to identify antisemitism when it is disguised as anti-Zionist political animus (Marcus, 2016). Since 2004, when I first headed the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), OCR’s policy has extended civil rights protections to Jewish American and other ethno-religious minority students (Marcus, 2004). This policy was affirmed by the Obama administration’s subregulatory guidance (Ali, 2010), as well as by the Trump administration’s Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism (Executive Office of the President, 2019). Now, under OCR’s guidance, if a Jewish student experiences “conduct [that] is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit” their “ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by” a college, the administration can be found liable under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for tolerating a “hostile environment” (Ali, 2010). The problem is that government officials and university administrators have difficulty recognizing antisemitism, especially when it is disguised as anti-Zionism. Moreover, administrators are often reluctant to address such incidents for fear of political backlash, especially among left-leaning faculty and students who may identify with the anti-Zionists. It does not help that the Jewish community is often divided, while others may perceive Jewish students as privileged. Too frequently, anti-Zionism is dismissed as a political opinion when, in fact, it is rooted in ancient anti-Jewish prejudice and targets commitments that are deeply rooted in Jewish identity. For these reasons, the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism requires executive departments and agencies charged with enforcing Title VI to consider the working definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), as well as the “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism” identified by IHRA (collectively, the IHRA definition), to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent (Executive Office of the President, 2019). Going forward, it is important for the Biden administration to build upon progress from the last three administrations. At a minimum, OCR should continue to use the IHRA definition—under appropriate circumstances—to determine whether conduct alleged to violate federal civil rights standards is or is not motivated by antisemitic intent. This important but limited use of the definition poses no threat to free speech, because it is focused only on the motivation of illicit conduct. Indeed, it bolsters free speech by providing additional tools to address conduct that either limits Jewish speakers or punishes students and student groups that express Zionist aspects of their Jewish identity. The Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism has not been rescinded by the Biden administration, unlike many of the orders of the previous president. Although White House officials have archived it with the rest of the Trump administration’s executive orders (as of this writing), it remains within the code of federal regulations. In addition, guidance clarifying the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism remains one of the active policies on the portal of the Department of Education, indicating that OCR considers it to reflect the current policy position of the agency (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). To this extent, it remains legally in effect. The Biden administration should leave no doubt about its commitment to combat antisemitism, by providing greater clarity through proactive investigations, technical assistance, and public education, especially through OCR’s newly formed Outreach, Prevention, Education, and Non-discrimination (OPEN) Center. Just as each of the past three administrations added to what their predecessors had done before, the incoming administration should do so as well. University leaders should avail themselves of the substantial tools that exist for addressing campus antisemitism, including the Louis D. Brandeis Center’s Best Practices Guide for Combating Campus Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism. Few research centers provide significant and pertinent academic resources; they include the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, and the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism. Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Academic Exchange Network provide scholarly exchange. Several organizations are involved in combating antisemitism in education. In addition to the Louis D. Brandeis Center, these include groups such as the American Jewish Committee, AMCHA Initiative, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Hillel International, Israeli American Council, and StandWithUs. Newer and smaller groups are constantly in formation. Although some coordinating functions are provided by the Israel on Campus Coalition, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, and other networks, these organizations generally function independently of one another. The Brandeis Center’s approach stresses ensuring civility, resolving problems, preventing discrimination, fighting crime, protecting speech, preventing disruption, responding to speech with more speech, and understanding and defining antisemitism (Marcus, 2017). To the extent that freedom of expression is implicated, administrators must adhere to federal and state law, as well as the doctrine of academic freedom. In all cases, however, administrators should follow these general principles: First, the correct response to hate or bias is never to do nothing. Second, university leaders should not invoke constitutional considerations in a selective or biased manner. Third, even where regulatory response is legally valid, it may be insufficient, and nor is it always the most prudent path. Finally, administrators can make considerable progress by incorporating the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Some US universities have begun to use the IHRA definition, although American adoption of this definition lags far behind that of the United Kingdom and other countries. Some universities that have adopted the IHRA definition or that officially recognize antisemitism include Western Washington University (Fields, 2018), Florida State University (Thrasher, 2020), New York University (Wolf, 2020), and the Georgia Institute of Technology (Schechter, 2021). Over a dozen US student governments across the country also have passed resolutions adopting the IHRA definition or the nearly identical State Department’s definition. Other universities, while not yet adopting the IHRA definition, have otherwise committed to addressing anti-Zionist forms of antisemitism. This is important, because Jewish students too frequently are required—as a condition of acceptance within undergraduate culture—to shed commitments that are integral to their identity (Lewin, 2020). California State University has formally recognized that “for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity.” (Lawfare Project, 2019). In November 2020, in a joint statement with the Louis D. Brandeis Center and other organizations, the University of Illinois at Urbana went further, stating that: For many Jewish students, Zionism is an integral part of their identity and their ethnic and ancestral heritage. These students have the right to openly express identification with Israel. The university will safeguard the abilities of these students, as well as all students, to participate in university-sponsored activities free from discrimination and harassment (Office of the Chancellor, 2020). Earlier, the Regents of the University of California formally acknowledged that historic manifestations of antisemitism have changed over time, and “expressions of anti-Semitism are more coded and difficult to identify. In particular, opposition to Zionism often is expressed in ways that are not simply statements of disagreement over politics and policy, but also assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture” (Regents of the University of California, 2016, p. 2). In the US, social change often occurs only through legal processes. This includes holding universities accountable when they fail to comply with federal and state legal protections for Jewish students. Several organizations use legal processes in this way, including the Louis D. Brandeis Center, the Lawfare Project, the Zionist Organization of America, and StandWithUs. This work is resource-intensive but highly impactful. The Jewish community has come to this approach relatively late, as funders are often less eager to support legal efforts than educational projects. As a result, this strategy has not received the consistent support that it requires. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly clear that some administrators will respond to longstanding problems only when they see that they will be held publicly and legally accountable should they fail to do so. Addressing Antisemitism in Elementary and Secondary Education At the elementary and secondary school levels, antisemitism is also a problem, although it is not as well studied and addressed. Although anti-Zionism has not been as frequently documented at these educational levels, Jewish students still face harassment and bullying. Improved compliance must be coupled with stronger safety measures and better data-gathering. Students at private Jewish schools also remain vulnerable to the threat of violent extremism, especially by right-wing white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The Biden administration, Congress, and the states themselves must provide financial support to secure the safety of religious institutions, including Jewish schools. There is no comprehensive data collection gathering incidents of anti-Jewish harassment and bullying in public schools. The ADL provides a useful data collection, but this is limited to voluntary reporting and the ADL’s private monitoring activities. The federal government must step in. The US Department of Education’s OCR oversees a comprehensive, mandatory collection of self-reported incidents involving a host of other offenses but not antisemitism per se. During my tenure, OCR decided for the first time to collect this data for discrete religious offenses, such as antisemitic, anti-Sikh, and anti-Muslim harassment. It is important for the Biden administration to carry through on this policy during the next Civil Rights Data Collection in order to provide a clear, reliable portrait of antisemitic incidents, including variations among schools, districts, states, and regions. Addressing Antisemitism Through Education A comprehensive approach to antisemitism through education must address cognitive, socioemotional, and behavioral conceptual dimensions at the elementary and secondary levels (OSCE, 2018, pp. 36–38). Cognitive learning should include origins, etiology, nature, and evolution, including common tropes, stereotypes, conspiracy theories, prejudices, and disguises. Socioemotional approaches should engage students’ sympathy for the Jewish experience. Students may, for example, learn about Jewish American history, culture, and society during Jewish Heritage Month and throughout the year, rather than encountering Jews only as biblical figures and Holocaust victims.[1] Finally, students should be taught to treat one another equally and respectfully, including Jewish students. This behavioral dimension must be reinforced through conduct codes, disciplinary interventions, high-level oversight, compliance programs, and federal enforcement. Addressing antisemitism through elementary and secondary education is fundamental not only to protecting Jewish students but also to combating violent extremism, advancing human rights, promoting democratic institutions, and honoring international commitments. Since 2014, the OSCE has urged participating countries, including the US, to “promote educational [programs] for combating anti-Semitism; to provide young people with opportunities for human rights education, including on the subject of anti-Semitism; and to respond promptly and effectively to acts of anti-Semitic violence” (OSCE, 2014). Some European countries have done so. For example, educators in Austria have created educational resources to address contemporary antisemitism through a program on “National Socialism and the Holocaust: Memory and the Present” (OSCE, 2018, p. 46). Despite international admonitions, American public antisemitism education remains cursory. In recent years, efforts have been made to advance the related subject of Holocaust education. In May 2020, for example, President Trump signed the Never-Again Education Act (Public Law No. 116–141), which requires the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to develop and disseminate resources to improve understanding of the Holocaust and authorizes various Holocaust education activities to engage teachers. Antisemitism education should be coupled with Holocaust education and Jewish education, but it is distinct from both of them. Holocaust education is important for many purposes, but it is not an adequate substitute for antisemitism education (OSCE, 2018, p. 45; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2017). When Holocaust education is not supplemented with education about contemporary antisemitism, it is unlikely to reduce the problem; students might infer that Jew-hatred is not an issue in the United States today or could fail to grasp its contemporary variations. American educators should develop curricular tools based on the experience of the Jewish community in the US. In doing so, they may profit from the example of their European peers as well as from the numerous tools that the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has fashioned through its “Words into Action to Address Intolerance” program.[2] Educators must undertake a “systematic approach, including curricula related to contemporary forms of anti-Semitism….” (OSCE, 2018, p. 15). This must include right-wing as well as left-wing forms, nationalist as well as anti-Zionist variations of antisemitism. Attention must be given to white supremacist as well as Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) propaganda. This is difficult, because antisemitism continually replicates and often assumes guises, such as anti-Zionist harassment, which educators may misinterpret as political opinion. Next Steps At every level, educators must address antisemitism both in and through education. Addressing antisemitism in education requires defining the problem clearly and articulating it expressly. This can be politically difficult but is nevertheless essential. In recent years, the federal government has taken steps in the right direction. This progress must be continued. At the university level, senior administrators should revise university policies to define and address antisemitism. At a minimum, they should catch up with European universities, which have more quickly adopted the IHRA definition. When universities fail to protect Jewish students from hostile environments, they should be held accountable; in some cases, this may require the use of legal processes, including lawsuits and the federal administrative system. At the elementary and secondary school level, more data is required to grasp the full extent of the problem. A good start would be to expand the federal Civil Rights Data Collection to include antisemitic harassment and bullying. Addressing antisemitism through education requires a new approach to research and curriculum. In higher education, some university-based antisemitism programs are doing valuable research, but there are far too few of them. Universities should be encouraged to develop antisemitism research institutions with faculty tenure tracks, graduate and undergraduate course offerings, postgraduate research opportunities, academic conferences, public lectures, and research funding. In elementary and secondary education, schools should provide education about both the Holocaust and antisemitism. The growing national push for ethnic studies should be reenvisioned to include the study of Jewish Americans, not only as Holocaust victims, but also as valuable contributing members of American society. Similarly, antisemitism should be taught as an American problem and not only a problem in Nazi Germany. Adequate progress can be made only when educators at every level address antisemitism, as well as other forms of hate and bias, in comprehensive fashion. References Ali, R. (2010, October 26). Harassment and Bullying. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf Biden, J. (2020, July 29). Joe Biden and the Jewish community: A record and plan of friendship, support and action. https://joebiden.com/joe-biden-and-the-jewish-community-a-record-and-a-plan-of-friendship-support-and-action/ Executive Office of the President (2019, December 11). Executive Order 13899, Combating Anti-Semitism. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/16/2019-27217/combating-anti-semitism Fields, A. (2018, April 10). Western responds to antisemitic vandalism with 120 new books. The AS Review. https://wp.wwu.edu/theasreview/2018/04/10/western-responds-to-antisemitic-vandalism-with-120-new-books/ Lawfare Project. (2019, March 20). California State University (CSU) agrees to landmark settlement with the Lawfare Project and Winston & Strawn LLP to safeguard Jewish students’ rights [Press release]. https://www.thelawfareproject.org/releases/2019/3/20/sfsu-settlement Lewin, A. D. (2020). Zionism – the integral component of Jewish identity that Jews are historically pressured to shed. Israel Affairs, 26(3), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2020.1754577 Marcus, K. L. (2004, September 13). Title VI and Title IX religious discrimination in schools and colleges. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/religious-rights2004.pdf Marcus, K. L. (2015). The definition of anti-Semitism. Oxford University Press. Marcus, K. L. (2016). Antisemitism in North American higher education. In S. K. Baum, N. J. Kressel, F. Cohen-Abady, & S. L. Jacobs (Eds.), Antisemitism in North America: New world, old hate (pp. 348–373). Brill. Marcus, K. L. (2017). Best practices guide for combating campus anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism. Louis D. Brandeis Center. https://brandeiscenter.com//home4/klmarcus/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/guide_01.pdf Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (2014). Declaration on enhancing efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Ministerial Council No. 8/14. shttps://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/2/d/130556.pdf Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, & United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2018). Addressing anti-Semitism through education: Guidelines for policymakers. https://www.osce.org/odihr/383089 Regents of the University of California. (2016, January 22). Final report of the Regents Working Group on principles against intolerance. http://ucioie.wpengine.com//home4/klmarcus/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles.pdf Schechter, D. (2021, January 22). Hillel, Georgia Tech to jointly oppose anti-Semitism. Atlanta Jewish Times. https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/hillel-georgia-tech-to-jointly-oppose-anti-semitism/ Thrasher, J. (2020, April 12). A message from President John Thrasher: An update on antisemitism and religious discrimination. Florida State University News. https://news.fsu.edu/news/university-news/2020/08/12/a-message-from-president-john-thrasher-an-update-on-antisemitism-and-religious-discrimination/ U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2021, January 19). Questions and answers on Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti-Semitism) and OCR’s enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-titleix-anti-semitism-20210119.pdf Office of the Chancellor. (2020, November 16). Joint statement on anti-Semitism. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/6231/1530347443 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). Education about the Holocaust and preventing genocide: A policy guide. UNESCO. Wolf, R. (2020, October 3). NYU adopts IHRA definition of antisemitism, settles antisemitism lawsuit. Jerusalem Post. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/nyu-dept-of-education-settle-antisemitism-lawsuit-with-student-644315 __________________________ ** Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law; former US assistant secretary of Education for Civil Rights; visiting research professor of political science at Yeshiva University. The author thanks Bayla Zohn for her research assistance. [1] See, generally, Jewish American Heritage Month: https://www.jewishheritagemonth.gov/ [2] A plethora of such tools may be found on ODIHR’s website: https://www.osce.org/project/words-into-action. The author served as an expert consultant for this project. Publication Series: Special Publication | Topics: Antisemitism, Contemporary Antisemitism in the United States
Washington Examiner ~ By Kenneth L. Marcus (March 17, 2021 – Washington Examiner) ~ In The Trial of the Chicago 7, Aaron Sorkin’s award-winning 2020 legal drama, activist Abbie Hoffman urges lawyer William Kunstler to recognize that “this is a political trial that was already decided for us. Ignoring that reality is just weird to me.” Kunstler, who in real life was known as a master of political lawyering, disagrees with his Yippie client. Kunstler insists, “There are civil trials, and there are criminal trials. There’s no such thing as a political trial.” Hoffman smirks knowingly. The rest of the movie unfolds as a vindication of Hoffman’s view. The show trial of the Chicago Seven for inciting a riot was nothing if not political, and their conviction was nothing if not preordained. You could argue that our own era likewise proceeds as a vindication of Hoffman’s cynicism. For those who dissent from prevailing values, the 2020s present a series of political trials whose outcome often seems predetermined. This can be seen in the parade of famous people who have been canceled, without due process or appeal, from Homer and Shakespeare to Dianne Feinstein and J.K. Rowling. Technology raises the stakes, as nonconformists are shuttered from Facebook and Twitter. Amazon likewise vanishes nonconforming books and films, especially if they challenge social orthodoxies. On the national stage, this trend in political trials is reflected in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plan to stack a 9/11-style Capitol riot commission with a 7-4 partisan tilt among the commissioners, as well as provisions on subpoena power and investigative scope that would undermine the prospects of a widely respected, objective tribunal. This may suit the political demands of Pelosi’s caucus, but the commission’s predictable dissent into Hoffman-esque political theater would deny the country not only an honest reckoning, but also a sober-eyed review of systemic breakdowns that the Capitol riot revealed in law enforcement, anti-terrorism programs, and civic order. Such politically driven show trials follow a strategy perfected on our college campuses. For years, Office for Civil Rights-approved Title IX procedures stripped collegiate defendants of due process protections, expelling them for alleged improprieties that they were unable to challenge in live hearings with direct examination. Sexual violence is a serious problem, but no survivor benefits when innocent students are wrongly punished, just as no innocent person benefits from the failure to prosecute provable sexual assault. President Biden has long threatened to reverse Title IX reforms that ensured all parties basic fairness. Earlier this month, he ordered his new secretary of education, Miguel Cordona, to begin this process. This might be shrewd politics, but it is not good policy. Higher education has not limited such injustices to the maladministration of Title IX. Smith College, for example, has smeared employees who were falsely charged with racial profiling. The college’s president rushed to the defense of a student who claimed mistreatment when a janitor and a campus police officer asked why she was eating lunch in a dorm lounge. President Kathleen McCartney apologized profusely for the supposed profiling and placed the janitor on leave. It took an outside law firm’s independent investigation to refute the charges. Investigators found that the student had eaten in a dorm that was closed for the summer. The janitor had been told to call security if he saw unauthorized people in that space. But Smith did not publicly apologize to the workers whose lives it had upended. Students understand that college campuses have become increasingly intolerant of dissenting views, and they censor themselves accordingly. Last month, Speech First, a civil liberties group, sued the University of Central Florida over policies that ban certain conversations about race. These policies establish a bias response team, which includes a police officer, to investigate “bias-related incidents,” regardless of whether the incidents are illegal or even unintentional. The complaint says that such bias incidents have included writing about “safe spaces,” tweeting “#BlackLivesMatter,” and chalking “Build the Wall” on a sidewalk. Students now keep their views to themselves for fear of being summoned before university officials for counseling, training, or reeducation. Speech First describes one client, typical of many around the country, who no longer expresses his support for Israel and opposition to anti-Semitism for fear that this will trigger a bias complaint. While it may be “weird,” as The Trial of the Chicago 7’s Abbie Hoffman put it, to ignore the reality of today’s political trials, it is not always futile to resist. Last month, a Stanford University faculty effort to smear the Hoover Institution and a handful of its prominent, iconoclastic scholars backfired. Hoover’s new director, Condoleezza Rice, prevailed in a faculty senate debate that yielded a resolution reportedly expressing confidence in Rice’s leadership and her commitment to better integrate Hoover into Stanford. In this way, reasoned debate sometimes turns out to be decisive. While it is important to be vigilant about such matters as sexual harassment, racial bias, civic order, and academic standards, it is no less critical to be scrupulous about due process and basic fairness. When these matters are politicized, as they too often are, the solution can often be found in public scrutiny, open debate, and vigorous advocacy. Kenneth L. Marcus is the founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. He previously served as the assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights from 2018 to 2020.
Jewish Journal ~ By Aaron Bandler (Jewish Journal / March 16, 2021) The student government at the University of Texas (UT) at Austin unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism on March 9. The resolution, which was obtained by the Journal, states that adopting IHRA became necessary following a spate of recent anti-Semitic incidents on campus, including a Jewish fraternity house being spray-painted with the words “Samys R Jews LOL, Samys’ Js Rape” and a then-professor comparing Jews to bacteria in an April 2020 Twitter thread. “In light of recent anti-Jewish hatred, vandalism, and endangerment, the University of Texas Student Government wholeheartedly issues its support for its Jewish students; and, be it resolved, that the University of Texas Student Government pledges to combat future anti-Jewish hatred by adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’ and its included examples, which have worldwide bipartisan support, including that now from the newly elected Biden administration,” the resolution states. Jordan Cope, a member of the student government, told the Journal, “While the university has been quick to address other forms of hatred, regardless of whether it actually occurred on campus, it has largely neglected the incidents that targeted its Jewish students. It is an unfortunate double standard that we have sought to address previously through student petition and now through this legislation, which we hope will create a more urgent precedent for our student body and university to better address anti-Semitism.” He added that the passage of the resolution “is a victory for the greater American Jewish community as it is for that of our campus, especially given the size of our university student population, which exceeds 50,000 students. Such [a] passage has emboldened the legitimacy of the IHRA definition, and we hope that it will inspire Jewish students to more proactively define, confront, and raise awareness to antisemitism in their communities.” Texas Hillel wrote in a March 10 Facebook post that they were grateful to the UT student government for passing the resolution. “Texas Hillel looks forward to partnering with our student leaders to promote an inclusive and welcoming campus environment and to help ensure that antisemitism has no place on the Forty Acres. Thank you to the students who shared their experiences and brought their perspectives to this process.” Kenneth L. Marcus, who heads the Brandeis Center, said in a statement to the Journal, “Anti-Semitism is too often swept under the rug by university administrators, particularly when it is disguised as anti-Zionism. This is why formal definitions are critical. Unfortunately, U.S. universities have lagged behind their European counterparts when it comes to adopting the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, one internationally agreed-upon definition in this field. “We commend UT students for taking matters into their own hands and serving as leaders in combating rising anti-Semitism on their campus. We urge the UT administration to follow its students’ leadership and adopt IHRA and its contemporary examples both for educational purposes and when investigating and responding to incidents of harassment and discrimination to determine whether such conduct is motivated by anti-Semitic animus or bias.” Carly Gammill, director of the StandWithUs Center for Combating Antisemitism, similarly said in a statement to the Journal, “StandWithUs celebrates the unanimous passing of a bill recognizing the IHRA definition of antisemitism by UT’s student government. This is a wonderful first step in committing to combat antisemitism and acknowledge the actual experiences of Jewish students at UT. We congratulate Jewish and pro-Israel students for their efforts. We look forward to learning about the additional steps that will be taken by UT’s student government to ensure and uphold an inclusive campus environment for Jewish students.”
Creators Syndicate (March 9, 2021) When Max Price was elected to Tufts University’s student judicial body, he likely didn’t expect to have to fight off a move to impeach him and remove him from office for being Jewish. And yet Price’s recent experience simply replicates the kind of crude anti-Semitic intimidation now so commonplace on college campuses that it qualifies for “dog-bites-man” status, too routine to merit much attention. Price’s ordeal wasn’t exactly ho-hum as far as he was concerned. A member of Tufts’ Community Union Judiciary, Price was among those tasked with monitoring student-initiated referenda for misrepresentations of fact. When the Tufts chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine introduced a referendum demanding that Tufts “apologize” because a former university police chief traveled to Israel with the Anti-Defamation League for a seminar that included Israeli and Palestinian police officers, Price identified significant inaccuracies in the text. This did not go over well with the SJP, which first demanded that Price be barred from consideration of the matter, and then that he be disciplined, impeached and removed from his position altogether. “I was … called a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, an enemy of progress, slandered in the student newspaper,” said Price. Over the course of two days, Price found himself interrogated at length about his Jewish identity and the beliefs that flowed from that identity. It was the kind of treatment that plainly never would have been tolerated had Price been Black or Latino, grilled on whether he was fit to pass on student governance issues on the basis that he had personal feelings about racial discrimination. It was only when the Louis D. Brandeis Center shined a spotlight on the disgrace at Tufts that the SJP withdrew its bid to remove Price from office. “It was an attempt to place Jewish identity on trial,” says Ken Marcus, chairman of the Center, a civil rights organization established to combat anti-Semitism. “Max Price refused to be silent.” Marcus notes that college students are highly vulnerable to social harassment, and the intensification of anti-Semitism makes Jewish students particularly vulnerable. “Most undergraduates placed under the pressure Max felt would have given up,” says Marcus. “And that’s the whole point.” Jewish students all over America are regularly targeted by campus campaigns to stigmatize them and drive them underground for believing in a Jewish homeland and the right to Jewish self-determination. Last year, University of Southern California senior Rose Ritch resigned as vice president of the school’s student government, “harassed for months by fellow students because they didn’t like one of my identities.” Hounded as a “Pro-Israel White Supremacist” and victimized by a social media drive to “impeach her Zionist a**,” Ritch recounted her decision to resign last summer. “Because I openly identify as a Jew who supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state — i.e., a Zionist,” she wrote, “I was accused by a group of students of being unsuitable as a student government leader.” Resignation, she concluded, “was the only sustainable choice I could make to protect both my physical safety and my mental health.” This was no surprise for Rachel Beyda, the UCLA sophomore whose confirmation as a member of the student’s council’s judicial board was blocked after she was grilled on her “conflict of interest” as a Jew reviewing governance issues. “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” one student demanded to know, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?” The council’s rejection of Beyda was rescinded only when a faculty adviser pointed out that being Jewish was not a “conflict of interest.” What Price, Ritch and Beyda have endured is, unfortunately, the new normal. Recent years have exposed a whole lot of ugly, and the metastasis of anti-Semitism posing as progressivism on American campuses is very ugly indeed. If there is any chance of shrinking this cancer, it will come from those on campus with the sense of justice to resolve to call it what it is. Jeff Robbins, a former assistant United States attorney and United States delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, was chief counsel for the minority of the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. An attorney specializing in the First Amendment, he is a longtime columnist for the Boston Herald, writing on politics, national security, human rights and the Mideast. To find out more about Jeff Robbins and read his past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
ANTISEMITISM AND ANTI-ZIONISM ON CAMPUS: THE SITUATION AND STRATEGIES FOR STUDENTS Join us for a virtual conversation on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism on Campus: The Situation and Strategies for Students, featuring Alyza D. Lewin, President, The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law, and Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, Co-founder and Director of AMCHA Initiative on Thursday, March 18th at 12:30 PM EST. See speaker bios Alyza D. Lewin is the President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (“LDB”), a 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 legal advocacy to combat the resurgence of antiSemitism on college and university campuses. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators on best practices to combat racism and anti-Semitism on campus. Ms. Lewin is also a co-founder and partner in Lewin & Lewin, LLP where she specializes in litigation, mediation, and government relations. Ms. Lewin has represented numerous high-profile clients. In 2014, Lewin argued Zivotofsky v. Kerry (the “Jerusalem Passport” case) before the U.S. Supreme Court, a case involving the constitutionality of a law granting any American citizen born in Jerusalem the right to list “Israel” as the place of birth on his/her U.S. passport. In Zivotofsky, the Supreme Court held that the President of the United States has the exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereigns. The case paved the way for President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. After 18 years, Ms. Lewin brought this pro-bono case to a successful resolution in October 2020, when Secretary of State Pompeo revised the US passport regulations and Ambassador David Friedman presented her client with the very first US passport to list “Israel” as place of birth for a US citizen born in Jerusalem. Ms. Lewin, together with her father Nathan Lewin, also successfully represented the Boim family in its landmark civil tort litigation which established the right of American victims of terror to obtain damages under American law against organizations that knowingly provide financial support to international terrorist groups. Ms. Lewin began her law career in Israel where she clerked on the Supreme Court for Deputy President Justice Menachem Elon. Ms. Lewin is the Immediate Past President of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (“AAJLJ”). In January 2020, Ms. Lewin was awarded the AAJLJ’s distinguished Pursuit of Justice Award. Ms. Lewin is married and has four children. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is cofounder and director of AMCHA Initiative, a non-profit organization that investigates, documents, and combats antisemitism at institutions of higher education in America. Previously she was a faculty member in Hebrew and Jewish Studies at the University of California from 1996 – 2016. RossmanBenjamin has written articles and reports about academic anti-Zionism and antisemitism and lectured widely on the growing threat to the safety of Jewish students on college campuses. She has presented her research in scholarly talks and academic conferences at several universities, including Indiana University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harvard University and McGill University. Rossman-Benjamin’s research has been featured in several volumes on antisemitism. In July 2010, she co-organized a two-week scholarly workshop entitled “Contemporary Antisemitism in Higher Education” at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. In 2016, she led a coalition of nearly 50 Jewish and education advocacy groups that successfully lobbied the University of California (UC), the nation’s largest and most prestigious public university, to condemn “antisemitism and antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism.” UC is the first U.S. university to adopt this landmark intolerance policy to protect Jewish students. Rossman-Benjamin was awarded the Cohon Foundation award for Benefiting the Jewish People in 2017, honored as one of the Top 100 People Influencing Jewish Life in 2014 by the Algemeiner, named one of 2013’s Bright Pro-Israel Lights on U.S. Campuses by the Jewish Press, received the 2012 Tikkun Olam Award from the Haiti Jewish Refugee Legacy and was nominated for Jewish Hero of the Year by the Jewish Federation of North America in 2011. Articles and opinion pieces from RossmanBenjamin have been published in Newsweek, The Hill, New York Daily News, Los Angeles Daily News, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, Contra Costa Times, Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, and dozens of others. This event is hosted by AZM Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism and Holocaust Denial Project. Questions? Email azm@azm.org or contact the Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc. lprior@brandeiscenter.com
JNS.org (March 5, 2021 / JNS) It was a familiar story but with an unfamiliar conclusion. A Jewish student objected to the anti-Semitic slanders promoted by a student organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction. For his pains, he was targeted for harassment and then scheduled to be hauled before a disciplinary meeting at which he was likely to be impeached from his post in student government for his pro-Israel views. The outcome—in which, for a change, the Israel-haters backed down—is not only a victory for the student. It also provides a template for others in similar situations to follow. That’s why, though dismissed by some as a tempest in an academic teacup, the drama that recently unfolded at Tufts University outside Boston is deserving of attention on the part of all those who worry about the future of American Jewry. For those who follow the battles being fought on North American college campuses in recent years as pro-BDS groups have worked to delegitimize the State of Israel and its supporters, what happened to Tufts student Max Price was nothing new, even if the abuse hurled at him was pretty severe. The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at Tufts promoted a student referendum aimed at rebuking the university’s former police chief for participating in a 2017 exchange program in which American law enforcement and first responders receive training in Israel. The exchange programs involve information-sharing and are useful because the Americans learn from the Israelis’ time-tested experience in dealing with emergencies. These programs are, however, the centerpiece of a propaganda campaign called “Deadly Exchange” launched by the anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace. According to them, they are a diabolical plot in which Americans are taught how to abuse and kill minorities by Israelis. In this way, groups like JVP and SJP not only attack Israel, but also delegitimize the American Jews who sponsor the trips as somehow responsible for American police shootings of African-Americans. As such, it is not merely a false and defamatory argument, but a 21st-century blood libel in which Jews are blamed for crimes committed by others. At Tufts, that took the form of a referendum promoted by SJP in which a resolution filled with misleading and false information about the exchanges was voted on by the students. That’s where Price, a member of the Tufts Community Union Judiciary, stepped in. His post is tasked with the job of fact-checking and removing false information from student government legislation. Price denounced the falsehoods in the referendum text. That led SJP and its supporters to single him out for a campaign of harassment, culminating in an effort to get him thrown out of his position by a disciplinary committee because of his “pro-Israel bias.” Price’s treatment—not just by SJP but also others in student government—was outrageous. Not only was he subjected to profane insults but also forced to sit through student government meetings in which he was questioned about his Jewish background and beliefs. At a Zoom meeting during which the referendum was discussed, he was muted and literally prevented from speaking. The message from the student government and from a university administration that stood by silently as Price suffered these insults was clear: If you are a pro-Israel Jew, you are going to be treated as a racist advocate of white supremacy who must be marginalized, rather than respected and heard. It is fear of similar treatment that more often than not convinces Jewish students to keep their heads down and stay silent when Israel is being falsely besmirched as an “apartheid state.” Indeed, that’s the whole point of the BDS movement. While ostensibly a campaign of economic warfare against the Jewish state, it has done nothing to damage its vibrant economy through its pathetic drive to undermine, for example, sales of Sabra hummus. Instead, like other successful cancel culture efforts, it seeks to silence those who refute intersectional myths about the Palestinian war against Israel being linked to the struggle for civil rights in the United States and which brands Zionism as racism. But Price wouldn’t be silent. In similar situations, most college kids choose to avoid putting a bull’s eye on their backs by challenging fashionable leftist theories promoted by both professors and other students. Indeed, even many of those who do speak up respond to the personal attacks by quitting student government in disgust. The same thing happens in other venues, such as journalism, when those labeled as too interested in defending Jewish rights or Israel are singled out. Walking away from such fights as not worth the grief is understandable. When that happens, though, anti-Semites win. After all, their objective is to clear the public square of proud Jews and friends of Israel. Rather than granting a hate group like SJP such an undeserved triumph, Price fought back. And he wasn’t alone. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which specializes in defending students in these situations, intervened to represent him. It rightly accused the university of failing to defend Price’s rights. Allowing him to suffer anti-Semitic harassment was in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which forbids such discriminatory treatment at educational institutions that, like Tufts, receive federal aid. What followed was what usually happens when bullies are challenged. Rather than face a lawsuit or the escalation of this fight into something much bigger than a simple case of successful intimidation, SJP gave up. It withdrew its effort to throw Price out of his student government post. That’s good news for Max Price and more evidence of the necessity of the Brandeis Center’s efforts. Price was right when he told JNS that SJP’s retreat didn’t absolve them of their responsibility for the anti-Semitic treatment he received. The university also deserves blame for the passive role it played. They wouldn’t step in to stop the harassment of a Jewish student because of his unwillingness to join with others in smearing Israel. Would they have been so slow to act had an African-American or other minority student been attacked for defending his community? While Price won this fight, there’s little reason to believe that will stop SJP and cowardly university administrators, who fear being “canceled” more than they value the rights of Jewish students, from behaving in a similar fashion the next time a student calls out anti-Semitic groups for their conduct. After all, even a Jewish publication like The Forward covered this story as if it were a misunderstanding in which both sides had some right on their side rather than a straightforward example of anti-Semitic agitation. But this also points the way to the answer as to how the BDS movement can be beaten. Jewish students must be armed with the facts to enable them to respond to lies like those of the “Deadly Exchange” campaign with the truth. But they need more than just information. They need to have the courage that is necessary to swim against the intellectual tide on campuses in which BDS is considered enlightened thought and support for Israel is deemed reactionary. That’s a difficult thing to ask of anyone, let alone a college student who at that age is more eager to fit in than to be a noisy dissenter against academic fashion. Yet as has always been the case throughout history, courage is what is needed if Jewish rights are to be successfully defended. Not every student can be expected to be as tough or to suffer the kind of opprobrium to which Price was subjected by anti-Semitic BDS supporters. But if we are to end the idea that it’s always open season on Jews who care about Israel on college campuses, then we are going to need more young men and women who can learn from his example. Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
Read the Brandies Brief here. More good news in another Brandeis Center case: Students for Justice in Palestine backed down at Tufts University after the Brandeis Center exposed SJP’s harassment of LDB client Max Price based on Price’s Jewish identity and beliefs. SJP withdrew its impeachment complaint, and the hearing scheduled against Price was canceled. This Brief highlights the Tufts case, as well as developments at the University of Illinois, where LDB continues to press for stronger responses to anti-Semitism. On the positive side, more student groups are pushing back against Jew-hatred. The Brief also highlights Gen Z Jews, a group of high schoolers who are making their voices heard. Amidst this backdrop, the Brandeis Center welcomes three new college interns, who are helping LDB to pursue its mission. Read more about these issues as well as the controversy over who really wrote the IHRA definition, a win against anti-Semitism at the University of Toronto, and much more. As always, we thank you for your tax deductible donations and acknowledge that without you our work could not be done.