Are Campuses Havens for Antisemitism? The Edwin Black Show, March 4, 2021, 3:00 pm via Zoom UC Irvine’s student government organization recently passed an anti-Israel boycott resolution, complete with BDS agitators peppering the debate with offensive comments – an all-too-common experience for Jewish students today. Tufts has subjected pro-Israel students to unprecedented harassment. Anti-Israel resolutions have no effect on university policy. What is their purpose other than to harass and marginalize Jewish students? What can be done about it? UCLA Professor and Daniel Pearl Foundation cofounder Judea Pearl, UCI Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Douglas Haynes, Louis D. Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin, and Jewish on Campus founder Julia Jassey join Edwin to explore these questions. Sign up for the Show alerts and Zoom links.
The Louis D. Brandeis Center Press Release ~ Contact: Nicole Rosen ~ 202-309-5724 SJP Withdraws Impeachment Complaint Against Jewish Tufts Student Government Member Washington, D.C., February 26: After legal advocates from The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) intervened on behalf of a Tufts University student threatened with impeachment for expressing Jewish identity, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), who filed the complaint, today withdrew it. Max Price, the Jewish Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) member, was informed today that the complaint filed by SJP that sought to have him removed from office for expressing Jewish identity, was withdrawn and the hearing cancelled. The hearing represented a continuation of a months-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination targeting Price on the basis of his Jewish ethnic identity. After Price attempted to point out baseless lies in SJP’s proposed Deadly Exchange referendum, he was harassed, targeted and marginalized, slandered in the student newspaper, interrogated as to whether he is fit to hold office, muted for an entire student government zoom meeting that he was elected to participate in, and attacked with age-old anti-Semitic tropes about money and power. Earlier this month, the Brandeis Center demanded Tufts President Monaco halt the disciplinary hearing and end the harassment and discrimination that has infringed on Price’s freedom of speech, denied him due process and deprived him of equal opportunity and equal access to university programs in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Tufts University’s stated institutional policies. The following are statements from Price and the Brandeis Center on SJP’s withdrawal of the complaint. Max Price “I was notified today that after facing public outcry and criticism of their discriminatory actions, SJP has withdrawn their complaint and cancelled my hearing. They tried to intimidate the Jewish community into silence, to force Jews to renounce their shared heritage, to exclude Jews from leadership. They got caught. While I am relieved that my Judaism is no longer on trial, this change in course does not absolve SJP of their behavior. I am disappointed that university administrators failed to intervene, and have not yet reached out to me to address my concerns. Unless Tufts introduces sweeping reforms to combat anti-Semitism, this will happen to somebody else. Now that my position in student government is secure, I look forward to devoting my energy to beating back the rising tides of bigotry and injustice on campus. I encourage all Jewish students who have faced anti-Semitism to make their voices heard. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once said, ‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant’.” Alyza D. Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center “We’re gratified that Max will no longer be subjected to a discriminatory impeachment hearing on Sunday. SJP got caught, their harassment of Jewish students was exposed, and they backpedaled. But this goes beyond Max. Now is when the real work begins. It is time for the Tufts administration to take concrete steps to end the ongoing marginalization, harassment and discrimination of Jewish students on campus. President Monaco should issue a statement condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms and publicly acknowledge that, for many Tufts students, Zionism is integral to their identity as Jews. The University should (1) officially adopt and utilize the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism and its contemporary examples when investigating and responding to incidents of harassment and discrimination to determine whether such conduct is motivated by anti-Semitic animus or bias; (2) revise its non-discrimination policy to include a prohibition on discrimination based on shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, including anti-Semitism; and (3) conduct training for the entire University community concerning the many manifestations of anti-Semitism. We are eager to work with Tufts President Monaco and his administration to improve the climate at Tufts for Jewish students. The time is now.” ### About The Louis D. Brandeis Center: The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc., or LDB, is an independent, nonprofit organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. The Brandeis Center conducts research, education, and advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses. It is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Jewish News Syndicate ~ BY MEIRA SVIRSKY AND SEAN SAVAGE ~ (February 23, 2021 / JNS) A Jewish student at Tufts University who claims that he has been the subject months-long campaign of anti-Semitic intimidation, harassment and discrimination is calling on the university to intervene. Max Price, a junior who is a member of the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ), which is tasked with fact-checking and removing bias student government legislation, has been outspoken against an SJP proposal to include its “Deadly Exchange Campaign” referendum in the student election ballot. “Mr. Price has been subjected to anti-Semitic harassment targeting him on the basis of his ethnic and ancestral Jewish identity,” stated a letter written by Price’s lawyers to Tufts University president Anthony Monaco, Tufts general counsel Mary Jeka and Tufts provost Nadine Aubry. The referendum blames Israel and American Jewish supporters of Israel for fueling what they call “racist conduct” by law enforcement in the United States and seeks to link Israel to white supremacy and police brutality. The campaign was initially launched by SJP in the spring of 2018 to demand that the university end military training trips for the Tufts University Police Department (TUPD), according to The Tufts Daily, the student newspaper at the university. The paper quotes SJP member Molly Tunis, who said that the group started the campaign after it learned that Kevin Maguire, executive director of public safety and chief of TUPD, attended a training trip with the Israeli military in December 2017. Price’s lawyers, who are from the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, claim that Price endured a months-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination for speaking against SJP’s attempt to include the referendum on the ballot. ‘They wanted to silence me’ The harassment included Price having to sit through meetings by Tufts student-government leadership questioning his personal beliefs and identity as a pro-Israel Jew, according to the lawyers. Even after the TCUJ determined that there was no evidence of bias and no need for Price to recuse himself, he was placed on “mute” for the entire final Zoom meeting when TCUJ members considered the referendum. “My job as a Senate judiciary member is to remove bias from any student body referendum. When I tried to do that with the ‘Deadly Exchange’ referendum, SJP launched a months-long campaign of harassment, slander and intimidation against me as the only Zionist Jew on the judiciary,” Price told JNS. “They wanted me to back down and to silence me, and when I didn’t, SJP expanded their campaign to slander me in the student newspaper, had me interrogated numerous times as to whether I was fit to hold office, attacked me with age-old anti-Semitic tropes about money and power, threatened me with impeachment, and now, I’m being denied a fair trial,” he said. Price’s lawyers also charge that members of the TCU Senate, which is set to preside over Price’s hearing, have made statements that utilize anti-Semitic tropes about money and power; indicate explicit support for SJP and its referendum; and demonstrate personal bias against Price. Patrick Collins, a spokesperson for Tufts University, told JNS that the university “takes very seriously any allegation of discrimination and has adopted policies and procedures to protect members of our community who feel they are the subject of discrimination. This policy is enforced by the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) which conducts thorough investigations into allegations of discrimination and determines when policy violations have occurred. ” Collins added that the TCU “creates its own internal rules and has established procedures to be followed when it receives complaints about the TCU and students who are in leadership positions. TCU, like all student organizations, is subject to the university’s non-discrimination policies and OEO investigation process.” “We are not at liberty to discuss specific student cases or allegations,” he stated. Alyza Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center that is representing Price, told JNS that “this is the worst case of incessant, continuous, non-stop harassment of a Jewish student that I have seen on campus.” She continued: “Max happens to be a strong young man, and I commend him for his strength, but no student should have to go through this. That is why there are federal laws and university policies to prevent this type of ongoing and persistent discrimination and harassment.” Lewin called on the university to intervene on Price’s behalf. “We have brought all of this to President Monaco’s attention, and he and his administration have done absolutely nothing. They’ve abandoned Max and the Jewish community. They have abdicated their responsibility. It’s shameful. The university should reverse course, intervene immediately and start taking effective measures to address the anti-Semitism on campus.”
Jewish Insider ~ By Melissa Weiss ~ February 23, 2021 A Tufts University student leader has accused the school of failing to protect him during “a months-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination” spearheaded by student government leaders and the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).Max Price, a junior at Tufts, is one of five undergraduates who serve on the student judiciary, which works in part to ensure that legislation voted on by the student body is fact-checked and neutral. During an effort to pass a controversial anti-Israel referendum during the fall 2020 semester, Price was tasked with removing biased and misleading information from the text of the ballot initiative.In a personal statement submitted to the university through the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law on February 3 and obtained by Jewish Insider, Price, who has served on the school’s student judiciary since April 2020, said that because of his efforts, he has “been targeted and marginalized, called a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, an enemy of progress.” In one screenshot of a group text message with members of the school’s senate, which was provided to JI, one student leader wrote, “Fuck Max Price.”Price, who was then serving as a co-president of Tufts Friends of Israel, denied repeated requests from executive members of the student senate and SJP to recuse himself from decisions on the referendum. In a personal statement to the university, Price wrote that he “was told I had an unavoidable conflict of interest by members of the Senate Executive Board and student leaders in the Committee on Student Life and [was] pressured, without regard to constitutional process, to dismiss myself from the proceedings.” After an emergency meeting in November over Price’s participation in proceedings involving the referendum, the school judiciary voted unanimously that Price did not have to recuse himself. A second meeting, convened by the student senate the following day, found the same. In the days that followed, according to documents provided by Price, SJP members continued to lobby judiciary members and the student government to sideline Price. In a mid-November judiciary meeting — held via Zoom — to discuss the text of the upcoming referendum, Price was forcibly muted and not allowed to participate in the discussion, a violation of the school’s constitution. The following month, Tufts students voted overwhelmingly in favor of the non-binding referendum condemning the participation of the university police department’s chief in an Anti-Defamation League-sponsored trip to Israel in 2017. At the time, students raised concerns that the university’s student-run elections commission committed numerous procedural violations in pushing forward the referendum. SJP leaders then filed a complaint with the student government, seeking to remove Price from his judiciary seat. Price now faces a February 28 hearing in front of the Tufts Community Union Senate, whose members will determine whether he is permitted to keep his position on the school judiciary. University administrators will not be attending the hearing, and recording is not allowed. Price said he was given the option of two time slots for the hearing, and when he chose the option that would allow his advisor to join, he was informed it was no longer available. A reporter from the Boston-area university’s newspaper, The Tufts Daily, was expected to attend — in violation of a provision in the school’s Student Conduct Resolution Procedure, which does not allow third party attendees at hearings. Hours after an inquiry from Jewish Insider to the university on Monday, members of the judiciary were informed that the reporter would no longer be present at the hearing. Price, who told JI he is not optimistic ahead of the trial, could face punishments ranging from a formal warning to expulsion from the student judiciary. “So far, there’s been no due process and no assumption of innocence. So that’s just the next domino to fall,” he said. “I fully anticipate that if the university doesn’t stop this trial, that I’ll be unjustly removed from my position.” Alyza Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center, told JI she was concerned about the university’s handling of her client’s situation. “What [Price] has withstood to this day is unbelievable,” she said. “Most people, not just students, would have folded long ago. I mean, the pressure, the constant pressure and constant harassment has just been extreme, and the university shockingly and really horrifyingly has not taken the steps that it should have taken… to protect him.” Price plans to graduate at the end of 2021, but is concerned about the campus atmosphere he’ll be leaving behind. One of the complaints he filed with the school’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) involved incoming Jewish freshmen who were asked in group chats whether they were “Israel or Palestine.” In that case, Price said, the OEO told them that the issue wasn’t under their jurisdiction. Working with university administrators, he explained, was “like shouting at a brick wall.” Patrick Collins, the university’s executive director for public relations, told JI, “Tufts University takes very seriously any allegation of discrimination and has adopted policies and procedures to protect members of our community who feel they are the subject of discrimination. This policy is enforced by the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) which conducts thorough investigations into allegations of discrimination and determines when policy violations have occurred.” Collins added: “The Tufts Community Union (TCU) is a student organization that provides an opportunity for students to debate issues that are important on our campus and in society. Students are free to propose referenda, build coalitions and support or oppose candidates based on their actions in office. Students are elected to serve in TCU leadership positions by the students. TCU creates its own internal rules and has established procedures to be followed when it receives complaints about the TCU and students who are in leadership positions. TCU, like all student organizations, is subject to the university’s non-discrimination policies and OEO investigation process.” Price said Tufts is sending a dangerous message to current and future students. “If this could happen to me, someone who’s been very outspoken, and has tried to stand up in the face of antisemitism and bigotry of all forms, it could happen to anybody,” Price told JI. “And if this is allowed to continue, if Tufts doesn’t step up, then it will happen to more people. It’s inevitable.”
A Tufts University student leader has accused the school of failing to protect him during “a months-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination” spearheaded by student government leaders and the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).Max Price, a junior at Tufts, is one of five undergraduates who serve on the student judiciary, which works in part to ensure that legislation voted on by the student body is fact-checked and neutral. During an effort to pass a controversial anti-Israel referendum during the fall 2020 semester, Price was tasked with removing biased and misleading information from the text of the ballot initiative.In a personal statement submitted to the university through the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law on February 3 and obtained by Jewish Insider, Price, who has served on the school’s student judiciary since April 2020, said that because of his efforts, he has “been targeted and marginalized, called a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, an enemy of progress.” In one screenshot of a group text message with members of the school’s senate, which was provided to JI, one student leader wrote, “Fuck Max Price.”Price, who was then serving as a co-president of Tufts Friends of Israel, denied repeated requests from executive members of the student senate and SJP to recuse himself from decisions on the referendum. In a personal statement to the university, Price wrote that he “was told I had an unavoidable conflict of interest by members of the Senate Executive Board and student leaders in the Committee on Student Life and [was] pressured, without regard to constitutional process, to dismiss myself from the proceedings.” After an emergency meeting in November over Price’s participation in proceedings involving the referendum, the school judiciary voted unanimously that Price did not have to recuse himself. A second meeting, convened by the student senate the following day, found the same. In the days that followed, according to documents provided by Price, SJP members continued to lobby judiciary members and the student government to sideline Price. In a mid-November judiciary meeting — held via Zoom — to discuss the text of the upcoming referendum, Price was forcibly muted and not allowed to participate in the discussion, a violation of the school’s constitution. The following month, Tufts students voted overwhelmingly in favor of the non-binding referendum condemning the participation of the university police department’s chief in an Anti-Defamation League-sponsored trip to Israel in 2017. At the time, students raised concerns that the university’s student-run elections commission committed numerous procedural violations in pushing forward the referendum. SJP leaders then filed a complaint with the student government, seeking to remove Price from his judiciary seat. Price now faces a February 28 hearing in front of the Tufts Community Union Senate, whose members will determine whether he is permitted to keep his position on the school judiciary. University administrators will not be attending the hearing, and recording is not allowed. Price said he was given the option of two time slots for the hearing, and when he chose the option that would allow his advisor to join, he was informed it was no longer available. A reporter from the Boston-area university’s newspaper, The Tufts Daily, was expected to attend — in violation of a provision in the school’s Student Conduct Resolution Procedure, which does not allow third party attendees at hearings. Hours after an inquiry from Jewish Insider to the university on Monday, members of the judiciary were informed that the reporter would no longer be present at the hearing. Price, who told JI he is not optimistic ahead of the trial, could face punishments ranging from a formal warning to expulsion from the student judiciary. “So far, there’s been no due process and no assumption of innocence. So that’s just the next domino to fall,” he said. “I fully anticipate that if the university doesn’t stop this trial, that I’ll be unjustly removed from my position.” Alyza Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center, told JI she was concerned about the university’s handling of her client’s situation. “What [Price] has withstood to this day is unbelievable,” she said. “Most people, not just students, would have folded long ago. I mean, the pressure, the constant pressure and constant harassment has just been extreme, and the university shockingly and really horrifyingly has not taken the steps that it should have taken… to protect him.” Price plans to graduate at the end of 2021, but is concerned about the campus atmosphere he’ll be leaving behind. One of the complaints he filed with the school’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) involved incoming Jewish freshmen who were asked in group chats whether they were “Israel or Palestine.” In that case, Price said, the OEO told them that the issue wasn’t under their jurisdiction. Working with university administrators, he explained, was “like shouting at a brick wall.” Patrick Collins, the university’s executive director for public relations, told JI, “Tufts University takes very seriously any allegation of discrimination and has adopted policies and procedures to protect members of our community who feel they are the subject of discrimination. This policy is enforced by the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) which conducts thorough investigations into allegations of discrimination and determines when policy violations have occurred.” Collins added: “The Tufts Community Union (TCU) is a student organization that provides an opportunity for students to debate issues that are important on our campus and in society. Students are free to propose referenda, build coalitions and support or oppose candidates based on their actions in office. Students are elected to serve in TCU leadership positions by the students. TCU creates its own internal rules and has established procedures to be followed when it receives complaints about the TCU and students who are in leadership positions. TCU, like all student organizations, is subject to the university’s non-discrimination policies and OEO investigation process.” Price said Tufts is sending a dangerous message to current and future students. “If this could happen to me, someone who’s been very outspoken, and has tried to stand up in the face of antisemitism and bigotry of all forms, it could happen to anybody,” Price told JI. “And if this is allowed to continue, if Tufts doesn’t step up, then it will happen to more people. It’s inevitable.”
Brandeis Center Press Release ~ February 23, 2021 ~ Contact: Nicole Rosen ~ 202-309-5724 Tufts Student Government Member Threatened with Impeachment, Disciplinary Action for Publicly Expressing His Jewish Identity Legal Advocates Demand Tufts President Intervene Immediately Washington, D.C., February 23: Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) member, Max Price, was provided a complaint seeking to have him removed from office for expressing Jewish identity. Lawyers from The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB), who are representing Price, demanded Tufts university promptly intervene and halt the proceedings. “Mr. Price has been subjected to anti-Semitic harassment targeting him on the basis of his ethnic and ancestral Jewish identity. This harassment reached a peak a week ago, when Mr. Price was provided with a complaint filed by Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) seeking to have him removed from the TCUJ,” wrote LDB lawyers to Tufts President Anthony Monaco, Tufts General Counsel Mary Jeka and Tufts Provost Nadine Aubry. “SJP’s position would mean that Black students may not participate in student government discussions related to race, Catholic students may not evaluate student government resolutions related to religion, and Jewish students must be precluded from discussing anti-Semitism.” The complaint comes after a months-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination against Price for speaking against SJP’s attempt to include a Deadly Exchange Campaign referendum on the student election ballot. During the course of SJP’s referendum campaign, SJP members repeatedly accused Price of bias, bullied and harassed him, and pressured him to recuse himself, and they are now threatening him with a disciplinary hearing and removal from office for no reason other than he has publicly expressed his Jewish identity As a result of SJP’s demands, Price was forced to sit through multiple hour-long interrogations by Tufts student government leadership about his personal beliefs and identity as a pro-Israel Jew. Even after the TCUJ determined that there was no evidence of bias and no need for Price to recuse himself, he was unlawfully silenced and placed on “mute” for the entire final Zoom meeting where TCUJ members considered the referendum. A Tufts Community Union Senate hearing to review SJP’s complaint against Price has been scheduled for February 28. Members of the TCU Senate, which is set to preside over Price’s hearing, have made statements that utilize anti-Semitic tropes about money and power, indicate explicit support for SJP and its hateful referendum, and demonstrate personal bias against Price. “As someone who has spoken out for racial justice and against police brutality, I was appalled SJP was attempting to spread blatantly baseless claims, to the entire student body, that Israel and Jews are responsible for institutional racism and police brutality in the U.S.,” stated Price. “As soon as I spoke up to correct the misinformation and the lies, I was targeted and marginalized, called a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, an enemy of progress, slandered in the student newspaper, told I had to recuse myself from my elected position, and most recently, threatened with impeachment and removal from the student government.” Deadly Exchange, launched by SJP Tufts in Spring 2018, blames Israel and its Jewish American supporters for fueling racist conduct in U.S. law enforcement. The campaign seeks to link Israel to white supremacy and police brutality. By mischaracterizing the purpose and content of American-Israeli law enforcement exchange programs, the Deadly Exchange Campaign spreads the false notion that Jews are responsible for systemic racism in the U.S. The campaign utilizes anti-Semitic tropes associated with Jewish power and Jewish conspiracies and promotes a modern blood libel, the baseless claim that Jews and Israel are responsible for tragic deaths of unarmed people of color by American officers. “Harassing, marginalizing, demonizing, and excluding these Jewish students on the basis of the Zionist components of their Jewish identity is just as unlawful and discriminatory as attacking a Jewish student for observing the Sabbath and keeping kosher,” wrote LDB lawyers in their letter to Tufts officials. “It is imperative that the university take prompt and effective steps to protect Mr. Price by halting the upcoming disciplinary hearing and ending the harassment and discrimination that has infringed on Mr. Price’s freedom of speech, denied him due process, and deprived him of equal opportunity and equal access to university programs in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Tufts University’s stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech, including academic freedom, as recently incorporated into regulations of the U.S. Department of Education.” However, despite being made aware of all the details of this harassment, the Tufts administration dismissed this letter and abdicated its responsibility to protect Jewish students. Silencing Price during the TCUJ deliberations of the Deadly Exchange Campaign denied the free speech that the First Amendment secures against government suppression. In addition, Tufts is legally obligated to protect Price under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Tufts own Non-Discrimination Policy. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in educational institutions that receive federal funding, and forbids discrimination against Jews on the basis of their actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. As clarified in Executive Order 13899, Title VI is to be enforced “against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.” The Executive Order references the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which makes clear that denying Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their historic homeland—i.e., anti-Zionism—is a contemporary form of anti-Semitism.
The Hill ~ BY KENNETH L. MARCUS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/22/21 01:00 PM EST Now that the impeachment is over, the question is: what next? Some will say we should move on. But we cannot move on without a reckoning. This reckoning must determine the failures that led to the Capitol riot, prevent future crises and facilitate national reconciliation. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has championed a “9/11-type commission” to investigate the Capitol riot. Her recommendation is correct, but her reasons are not. Pelosi told members of Congress that the issue is “about you.” She told them it is necessary to address “your safety as you serve in Congress, your safety in your district and your safety when traveling to and from Washington.” Pelosi is wrong, because the issue is not just about Congress. It is about all Americans. The problem at hand is not only what Pelosi called “serious and ongoing security threats facing members” of Congress. The Capitol riot was also a law enforcement breakdown, an act of domestic terrorism according to President Biden and a wakeup call about anti-Semitic and racist hate groups. Some will argue that the next step should be the courts. But I believe courts are not built for this. A Biden Justice Department investigation would smell of political bias. Trump’s legal challenges in different states, already underway, will not address the fundamental policy issues that a commission can resolve. Others will urge congressional investigations. Congressmen are already bickering over committee jurisdiction and personnel. A Democratic senator has charged that three Republican senators “need to be off all relevant committees reviewing this matter” due to what he calls their “massive potential conflict of interest.” Republicans will probably counter charge that Democratic senators are themselves biased. Partisan disputes, while endemic to parliamentary bodies, are antithetical to the needs of fair investigation. A proper reckoning will succeed only if it provides complete transparency, develops comprehensive solutions, garners widespread support and enjoys unquestioned legitimacy. An effective investigation must not be swayed by the considerations which properly drive politically-elected officials or the limitations which necessarily constrain state and federal courts. Such investigations are the work of commissioners, not congressmen or courts. Lawmakers from both parties have introduced bills to create one based on the 9/11 commission. A successful commission must have a broad mandate, a bipartisan membership and a threefold emphasis. Specifically, it must address the riot’s character as a breakdown of law enforcement, a failure of antiterrorism efforts and a resurgence of fringe hate groups. First, the commission must examine the systemic breakdowns that permitted a mob to breach Capitol defenses and overwhelm Capitol Police. They will need to explore, for example, whether Mayor Muriel Bowser urged federal agencies on Jan. 5 not to send additional forces. By some reports, Bowser wished to avoid the heavy law enforcement footprint that some believe inflamed protest situations last year. Similarly, commissioners should examine why Capitol Police declined offers of National Guard assistance. At a time when some urge defunding police departments, the commission must address whether law enforcement must instead be strengthened. Second, the commission must consider whether antiterrorism networks designed to defend against attacks from abroad are capable of preventing future incidents of domestic extremism. This remains one of America’s most serious threats. Commissioners should explore the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to produce analytical products to predict and prevent what happened on Jan. 6. Commissioners must understand and fix the structural limitations that prevented intelligence and anti-terrorist experts from coordinating adequate prevention and response. Third, the commission must examine evidence of planning and collaboration among far-right organizations such as the Proud Boys — which was recently declared a terrorist organization by Canada —Three Percenters and Oath Keepers. It is important to protect the constitutional right of all groups to espouse dissenting political perspectives, even if extreme; but it is no less critical to ensure that such views are not expressed through violence. In particular, the commission must explore the coordination of groups displaying notorious symbols of hate: Confederate flags, the white nationalist “Kekistan” flag, and a “Camp Auschwitz” shirt. Commissioners should determine whether action is required to prevent further violence aimed at racial minorities or religious institutions. In short, Congress must avoid two opposite mistakes. On the one hand, it must avoid pressures to politicize the riot, use it to partisan advantage, or examine only narrow aspects of interlocking problems. On the other, it must avoid the urge to move on prematurely before we have learned the lessons that the crisis has to give. If cool heads prevail, we will use this opportunity to address serious challenges facing law enforcement, antiterrorism policy and civil rights. Kenneth L. Marcus chairs The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. He served in the Trump administration as assistant secretary of Education for Civil Rights and is a former staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Join us for a discussion on “The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism: Impact, Challenges and Best Practice” presented by The Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law and The Kantor Center for the Study of European Jewry at Tel Aviv University on Monday, February 22 – 11 am-12:30 pm Eastern As the internationally-recognized working definition continues to be adopted worldwide, using the definition accurately and effectively is key to its gaining further traction. Hear from the experts who helped formulate the working definition and learn best practices for its implementation. Presentation and discussion with: Professor Irwin Cotler ~ Canadian Special Envoy for Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism and Founder and Chair, The Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights Professor Dina Porat ~ The Kantor Center for the Study of European Jewry at Tel Aviv University and Chief Historian of Yad Vashem Kenneth Marcus ~ Founder and Chairman, The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law and former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Remarks by: Jacob Dallal ~ Ministry of Strategic Affairs, Government of Israel Moderator: Alyza D. Lewin ~ President, The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law Monday, February 22, 2021 11am-12:30 pm Eastern 4:00-5:30 pm UK 5:00-6:30 pm Europe 6:00-7:30 pm Israel REGISTER HERE!
JNS.org ~ By Nathan Lewin (February 17, 2021 / JNS) A federal appeals court has just issued a pernicious constitutional ruling that should promptly be voided. In March 2017, the Arkansas legislature, by a unanimous vote of its Senate and a 69-3 vote of its House, passed a law designed to deter boycotts against Israel. Copying the text of a law enacted in Georgia in April 2016 (also adopted by the Texas legislature in May 2017 and by several other states), Arkansas law requires any company contracting with the state government to certify that it does not engage in a boycott of Israel. “Boycott of Israel” is defined in the law as “engaging in refusals to deal, terminating business activities or other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel.” The words “other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel,” read in context, obviously mean other forms of business conduct. Yet a panel of the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, headquartered in St. Louis, has just declared the Arkansas law unconstitutional because, says the court’s opinion, it violates the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment. Two of the three judges who heard the case interpreted the words “other actions” as preventing a company from not only taking commercial steps against Israel but also “post[ing] anti-Israel signs, donat[ing] to causes that promote a boycott of Israel, encourag[ing] others to boycott Israel or even publicly criticiz[ing] the Act.” Because the law, as two judges broadly construed it, sweeps so far, the court ruled that the law is invalid because it constitutes governmental suppression of free expression. The dissenting judge said that the Arkansas law restricts only commercial practice, not the speech that the majority hypothesized. He invoked a rule of statutory interpretation that is taught to first-year law students—ejusdem generis. (It is also one of the rules enumerated by the rabbis of the Mishna for deriving Jewish law from biblical texts.) The words “other actions,” he said, are “a catch-all for commercial activities that do not fit the first two categories but have the same purpose.” The judges knew the importance of the case. The official decision published on Feb. 13 lists 23 friends of the court endorsing the constitutional challenge to the anti-BDS law (including the Council on American Islamic Relations, Jewish Voice for Peace, Palestine Legal and J Street) and 23 amici curiae urging that the law be sustained (including nine states, the American Jewish Committee, the Orthodox Union, the Brandeis Center, StandWithUs and Shurat HaDin). Even the two judges who found a defect in the Arkansas law rejected the broad claim made by the BDS supporters that anti-BDS laws violate a 1982 Supreme Court precedent that granted free-speech status to a civil-rights boycott of racist merchants in Mississippi. This part of the court’s decision helps sustain the legal theory underlying the anti-BDS laws. But the majority flouted bedrock rules of statutory construction to find the Arkansas law unconstitutional. The legal rule that statutes should be construed to avoid serious constitutional problems dates back to an 1804 decision by Chief Justice John Marshall. The Supreme Court said in 1988 that this principle of how judges must read a law is “beyond debate.” The 8th Circuit court did the opposite. Rather than reading the law as limited to business practices and thereby avoiding a constitutional issue, the judges extended Arkansas’ law beyond its natural meaning so as to bring it into potential conflict with a constitutionally protected right. Is there is a remedy short of review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which already has a heavy docket of controversies on its plate and may be reluctant to wade into this one? Within 14 days of the panel’s decision, Arkansas’s Attorney General may request that the full array of active Circuit Judges of the 8th Circuit review the decision in what lawyers call an “en banc rehearing.” The 8th Circuit’s current line-up is reason to be optimistic if Arkansas files such a motion. The Federal Rules authorize en banc review of a case that presents “one or more questions of exceptional importance”—a standard that fits the 8th Circuit’s decision. Nathan Lewin is a criminal defense attorney with a Supreme Court practice who has taught at Georgetown, Harvard, University of Chicago, George Washington and Columbia law schools.
A Conversation with Alyza Lewin ~ As part of the “Unifying Our Alumni Voice,” webinar series, Alums for Campus welcomes our President, Alyza D. Lewin. Alyza is this week’s featured speaker. Please join us on Wednesday, February 17th at 5 pm for what is sure to be an engaging conversation. Register Here!
by: Jen Lask (WCIA.com) Posted: Feb 9, 2021 / 10:33 PM CST / Updated: Feb 9, 2021 / 10:40 PM CST CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (WCIA) — Members of the University of Illinois’ Jewish community are on edge after a student said someone egged the Israeli flag hanging outside on his balcony. The incident happened early Monday morning just after 1:00. Jeremy Zelner said he was working on a paper when he heard something hitting the window. He went outside to check what it was. “But by that time, the egging stopped and I looked outside and nobody was there,” he said. “So, it was a pretty relatively quick thing, but there was probably like 10, 15, 20 eggs that were just all over the balcony.” He said he was initially stunned to see what had happened. Then it sunk in. “Our first thought was, put it everywhere,” Zelner said. “We are not the type of people to be scared. We’re not the type of people that would be silenced. We’re not the type of people to back down from what we believe in.” Zelner contacted Champaign Police and university officials. Police said they are still gathering information to start the initial investigation. “I think that to target and vandalize an apartment based on it having an Israeli flag is clearly targeting someone for their national origin or for their ancestral identity,” UIUC Executive Director Erez Cohen told WCIA. “It’s basically hateful and it’s targeted. It’s a form of discrimination that we should not have on our campus or in our town. There is no room for hateful vandalism anywhere, especially in a town that really tries to be as diverse and as welcoming as possible.” Zelner said he wants as many people as possible to see his video from after the egging, and his flag will remain on display. “We were literally just putting up a flag that, you know, that’s a country that a lot of Jewish people live in,” Zelner explained. “We’re very in tune with the conflict, we understand what’s going on. We are people that are very welcoming to the conversation about it. And so, you know, I am very proud of being a Jewish person. I’m very proud of my friends who are Jewish as well. And we have conversations, we talk about it. And, you know, it’s important to have those conversations.” “The students are very much in the spirit of this is not going to deter us from being proud of who we are and celebrating our identity,” Cohen said. “We are going to continue to do the same here at Hillel and make sure that our Jewish community feels that they are safe and they are proud to be Jewish.” Zelner stressed that the door is open for conversations, but there was a difference between engaging in debate and engaging in anti-Semitism. “You can say I don’t agree with [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, but you can’t say death to Israel,” Zelner said. “There’s a very obviously different wording in language and stuff like that… the door is open to conversation. But I think it’s very important to identify how not to be anti-Semitic and same for Jewish people, how to not be Islamophobic. Then there could be a safe space to talk about this.” In October, Jewish students at UIUC filed a federal complaint about a rise in anti-Semitism at the university. They said the university did not take appropriate action to address vandalism of Jewish houses, an increase in swastikas and direct harassment of Jewish students. In November, UIUC, along with the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago, Illini Hillel, Hillel International, Illini Chabad, Arnold & Porter and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, released a statement in support of Jewish students on campus. The university pledged to take the following steps: Creating Advisory Council on Jewish and Campus Life, made of undergraduate/graduate students, staff, alumni and representatives of the Jewish Community. Create focused and regularly recurring educational programs regarding anti-Semitism. Review procedures and practices and, when necessary, revise so they are aligned with values of opposing discrimination and harassment on campus.