On Monday, November 9 at 1 pm (Eastern) Hasbara Fellows will have an intimate discussion with Alyza Lewin, President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law, about merging law students and undergraduate students to fight #antisemitism on campus. RSVP at bit.ly/327bUPx

CAMERA presents Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman at the Brandeis Center, this Thursday, November 12 at noon / 12 pm (Eastern) to discuss new legal weapons on the war against anti-semitism on campus. For the CAMERA flyer, click here.

To register, click here.

Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin has long led the fight to provide Americans with this right, having argued forcefully on this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere.

Washington, D.C., October 29, 2020:

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law applauds the Trump Administration’s announcement that Americans born in Jerusalem will finally be able to identify Israel on their passports as their country of birth. Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin has long led the fight to provide Americans with this right, having argued forcefully on this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere.

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus commented, “It is unbelievable that it has taken so long for the U.S. State Department to drop the ridiculous notion that Jerusalem-born American citizens should be prohibited from acknowledging the truth on their passports, which is that they were born in Israel. It seems that the only people who didn’t understand this were officials at the State Department. The Brandeis Center has been fighting this fight for many years. We are very proud of Alyza Lewin for this victory in her years-long campaign, which the Brandeis Center has supported through legal advocacy as well as numerous events around the country. Lewin has been tireless in arguing for this result in appearances around the country, as well as before the U.S. Supreme Court and in Brandeis Center publications.”

Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin commented, “Until today, US passport policy favored those who seek Israel’s demise. It permitted individuals who wish to erase any mention of the Jewish homeland from their US passport to do so, while denying citizens born in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, the ability to list their country of birth as their place of birth. We are grateful to Ambassador David Friedman for his extraordinary efforts to correct this inequity. And we thank President Trump for having the courage formally to recognize that Jerusalem is indeed in Israel.”

As the Brandeis Center has explained, Congress passed Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 2002, allowing American Citizens born in Jerusalem to acknowledge on their U.S. passports that they were born in Israel. Since then, the State Department surprisingly refused to enforce this law, and listing only “Jerusalem” on its passports. In an infamous judicial decision, the Supreme Court held that the executive branch could ignore the statute and upheld the State Department’s policy of listing only Jerusalem on the passports of American Citizens.

Alyza Lewin and her father, LDB Legal Advisor Nathan Lewin, had begun that case, as well as the movement to change U.S. policy on this issue, nearly 18 years ago when their firm (Lewin & Lewin) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC, on behalf of an infant, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky. Read Lewin & Lewin’s Press Release here. Menachem, the child of two American citizens, was born in Jerusalem in October 2002, three weeks after the US Congress passed Public Law No. 107-228. The new law governed US passports and birth certificates and directed that for “a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary [of State] shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.”

President Lewin added, “For much too long American citizens born in Jerusalem who are proud of having been born in Israel, have been prevented from listing “Israel” as the place of birth on their US passports due to an antiquated, biased State Department policy. Eighteen years ago, the US Congress sought to correct this inequity by passing a law requiring the State Department to list “Israel” as the place of birth for citizens born in Jerusalem who request it. When the Executive Branch balked at following the law, my father and I brought a lawsuit to enforce the rights of American citizens like our client, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky. It took nearly eighteen years, two trips to the US Supreme Court, President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the persistent effort of Ambassador David Friedman, to finally bring us to this day. US citizens will now carry passports that accurately identify where they were born. I am honored and deeply gratified to have been able to play a role in bringing about such an historic momentous moment.”

The Brandeis Center’s amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, co-authored by prominent attorneys Alan Gura and Eugene Kontorovich in support of the plaintiff’s wishes to have “Israel” listed as his place of birth on his passport, the Center explained that designation of one’s place of birth does not establish to formal recognition by the United States of the sovereign status over that location.

Watch the video of the ceremony held at the US Embassy in Jerusalem on October 30, 2020, during which Menachem Zivotofsky was presented with the first US Passport listing “Israel” as the place of birth for an American citizen born in Jerusalem here.

“IHRA allows for criticism of Israel, assuming it’s the same criticism as of other countries,” said speaker Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. She went on to say that if social-media companies recognize only some forms of anti-Semitism, they will “severely undermine their own ability to combat hate.”

FAYGIE HOLT- October 26, 2020

(October 26, 2020 / JNS) Hate online, particularly anti-Semitism, is continuing to grow at alarming rates, and stopping it will require education, collaboration and a cohesive definition were the findings from the first-of-its-kind, two-day symposium sponsored by the U.S. State Department.

“Nowadays, bigots everywhere can spread anti-Semitism online anonymously. In the first eight months of 2020, the Israel anti-Semitism monitoring system recorded 1.7 million anti-Semitic messages from more than 445,000 users on Twitter and YouTube; 37,000 of those messages referred to COVID-19, and many came from foreign agents like government of Iran that ludicrously blamed Israel” for the pandemic, said U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in his opening remarks of the “Ancient Hatred, Modern Medium: Conference on Internet Anti-Semitism.”

The seven-hour conference featured recorded discussions and talks about a host of topics from “The Psychology of Hate” to “Building Coalitions and Alliances” to the “Legal Framework” of combating anti-Semitism. Experts came from across the globe and included members of the U.S. Congress, Israeli government officials, representatives from TikTok and Facebook, university professors and others.

“The Internet can be tremendous force for good. It can bring people together and allow everyone a voice,” said Michael Gove, a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. “But it is also the case that the Internet can be a cause for evil” and recruit “susceptible minds” to the “gospel of evil.”

Joel Finkelstein of the Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities and director of the Contagion Research Institute said his group uses artificial intelligence to “track, expose and combat hate.”

He explained that hate groups often use code words and memes, including colorful cartoon images, to get across their agendas and increase their appeal.

Further, there seems to be a correlation between an uptick in violent speech and increased actions. For instance, in 2018, his group warned of increased anti-Semitism on a platform used by far-right activists, and shortly afterwards, the deadly shooting at the Tree of Life*Or L’Simcha Synagogue in Pittsburgh took place during Shabbat-morning services. Similarly, after an increase in talk about a race war came an uptick in militia groups appearing at public events and “threatening to attack people.”

Still, said Finkelstein, it’s not just the far-right using the web. He noted a “parallel structure for left-wing violence, leftist anarchists and Socialists,” who tend to utilize their own code words and memes.

‘Guidance for reviews looking at content’

According to Peter Stern, director of stakeholder engagement and content policy at Facebook, 95 percent of hate speech is removed by automaton, and they are trying to make it harder for administrators of groups that have been removed to create new groups.

“It’s easy to forget that at the end of the day, we have to come up with guidance for the more than 15,000 reviewers who will be looking at content every day,” said Stern, adding that they need concrete guidance and not just have people making judgment calls.

The popular video platform TikTok is also working to combat hate on its platform. According to Jeff Collins, senior director of global trust and safety, it’s not enough to “disrupt the ecosystem of hate,” but to try to prevent to the “amplification” of it.

One step they are taking is utilizing algorithms to prevent “filter bubbles,” where a user would only see one type of content. While watching, for example, cute cat videos and then getting more like-minded videos in an individual feed might not be problematic, the concern of a “filter bubble” is when it’s used to target and amplify hate or other problematic content.

Collins also said it’s not always as simple as taking down content due to the sheer amount of material online and because “bad actors” are trying to circumvent security measures.

Another issue is defining what constitutes anti-Semitism. It’s a question that vexes not only social-media companies but many others as well, particularly as it relates to Israel and Zionism.

That’s why many of the speakers stressed the importance of passing one standard definition of anti-Semitism, specifically the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition. However, stressed a number of the speakers, it is not enough to pass the short definition, but to utilize and include the extended definition, which includes examples of anti-Semitism in real-life speech, media and elsewhere.

It is the extended definition that some balk at, claiming that it limits legitimate forms of expression and criticism of Israel; it was also a point that caused some bristling from conference speakers.

“IHRA allows for criticism of Israel, assuming it’s the same criticism as of other countries,” said speaker Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. She went on to say that if social-media companies recognize only some forms of anti-Semitism, they will “severely undermine their own ability to combat hate.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a member of the interparliamentary task force to combat online anti-Semitism who has been a target of anti-Semitism online along with her family, said it’s important to demand “real global accountability” in combating hate.

The global reach of the Internet means that people can “spew hateful speech online” without fear of repercussions from the “seemingly protected place of their home,” she said. “It’s never been easier for anti-Semitism to spread.”

She also pushed for the adoption of IHRA definition and said it’s vital to understand the difference between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.

Stern of Facebook said that “IHRA definition is helpful to us because it flags important issues we are dealing with,” and that “If you look at our policy and you look at IHRA definition, there is quite a bit of overlap.”

Address youth in school and on the sports field

Presenting a perspective from the Muslim world, H.E. Dr. Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi, a member of the Federal National Council in the United Arab Emirates, suggested that the way to combat online hate is to start with youth.

“We have to start from the schools—from within the educational system to make sure that teachers in the classroom are promoting these values: values of coexistence, of tolerance,” he said. “We have to engage, beside education, public figures. For example, in our region, football (soccer in the United States) is very famous. We should engage some of these public players because the new generation looks at them as role models. Let them be engaged in some activities that promote co-existence.”

Al Nuaimi, who also serves the chairman of the steering board of Hedayah, the International Center for Excellence for Countering Violent Extremism, also said it was important that religious clergy from different faiths get involved, and work on common initiatives and programs to help build tolerance.

While it may seem a daunting task, it is one that must be fought and won, stressed the speakers.

“The ancient curse of anti-Semitism is like a vampire; every time we think we’ve killed it and put in the coffin, somehow it comes back to prowl the night,” said speaker Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. “We never manage to get a dagger into the heart of the monster, but that does not mean we should give up far from it.

“We need to learn to use social media to combat, and ultimately, defeat anti-Semitism.”

Read the article here.

Jewish students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (“UIUC”) have faced an unrelenting campaign of anti-Semitic harassment, according to a complaint filed with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”). Read LDB’s Press Release

University of Illinois Jewish Students File Complaint With U.S. Department of Education Alleging Anti-Semitic Hostile Environment

Contact: Nicole Rosen ~ 202-309-5724 ~ nicole@rosencomm.com

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 23, 2020):    The complaint, which was announced for the first time today, was submitted on behalf of UIUC’s Jewish students and alleges that UIUC has allowed a hostile environment to proliferate on its campus in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The complaint outlines how Jewish and pro-Israel UIUC students have been subjected to an alarming increase in anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism over the past five years.  It details how numerous swastikas have been found on UIUC’s campus, Jewish ritual items such as menorahs and mezuzahs have been vandalized, and windows of Jewish fraternity houses have been smashed by bricks.  It also describes how members and supporters of Students for Justice in Palestine at UIUC publicly glorify members of U.S. government-designated terrorist organizations, harass UIUC Jewish and pro-Israel students with epithets like “Nazi” and “white supremacist,” advocate the expulsion of Zionists from campus, and have converted mandatory UIUC diversity training into anti-Israel indoctrination.

Examples of anti-Semitic incidents that occurred at UIUC before the complaint was filed and since can be found here. A summary of the complaint can be found here.

The complaint was prepared by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP together with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, in consultation with the Jewish United Fund, and Hillel International.  Arnold & Porter are official legal counsel and Brandeis Center lawyers serve as the federal policy advocates and experts.

“Hillel has been working for years to support Jewish and pro-Israel UIUC students cope with serious challenges on their campus.  Sadly, too many of them actually fear for their safety, and some have been warned to refrain from openly wearing Jewish symbols while walking around campus,” said Mark Rotenberg, Hillel International’s Vice President of University Initiatives and Legal Affairs.

“Jewish students at UIUC have been targeted for years,” said Alyza D. Lewin, President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.  “We gave UIUC seven months since the complaint was filed to address the ongoing harassment.  In the face of continuous stall tactics and almost no action from the university, we decided to publicize our efforts.  We hope public awareness of this dire situation will prompt the university to finally acknowledge and address the egregious anti-Semitic harassment it has swept under the rug for far too long.”

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in educational institutions that receive federal funding.  Title VI forbids discrimination against Jews on the basis of their actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.  After being placed on notice of a hostile environment, an educational institution that receives funds covered by Title VI must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment and prevent it from recurring.   As recently 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 the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their historic homeland—i.e., anti-Zionism—is a contemporary form of anti-Semitism.

The UIUC Title VI complaint alleges that, despite repeatedly being placed on notice of the developing hostile environment on UIUC’s campus, the UIUC administration has failed to take the measures necessary to provide Jewish and pro-Israel students with a discrimination-free academic setting.  That failure to act when Jews are harassed because of their Jewish identity or because of their belief in Israel as the Jewish Homeland stands in marked contrast to the vigorous steps that UIUC has taken in the face of discrimination or harassment aimed at other groups.

“Being a Jew at UIUC comes with immense hate and hostility” said Ian Katsnelson, a UIUC student majoring in Biology and Political Science.  “First, as a senator on student government I’ve experienced shocking examples of anti-Semitism firsthand.  I’ve been called a genocide supporter, a white supremacist, and harassed; all for being publicly Jewish.  And all of this in front of the administration—who did nothing.  Second, as a student, I’ve seen the effect that the hostility has on my friends—they’re afraid to wear Jewish stars, Hebrew writing, or even Jewish Greek letters.  This is my third year at U of I and I can tell you . . . it’s exhausting,”

In some instances, as described in the complaint, UIUC employees have been complicit in fostering a hostile environment.  These employees include peer advisors who organized a presentation at a mandatory staff development meeting in September 2019 declaring Zionism to be a form of racism, and a Vice Chancellor who openly admitted that she removed a Jewish student from the UIUC Campus Student Elections Commission because “she’s Jewish.”  Occasional attempts by the university to address the anti-Semitism at UIUC (such as the email circulated by UIUC’s Chancellor after the September 2019 staff development meeting), have done little to ameliorate the hostile environment on campus.

Lauren Nesher, a UIUC student majoring in Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, explained, “Once I became a leader in the pro-Israel Jewish community on campus, I was immediately targeted.  I was even publicly singled out by a professor on social media.  While there are faculty who are supportive, it can be really hard to be publicly Jewish.  I constantly worry about how people will react when they find out I’m Jewish or that I support Israel.”

The complaint also makes clear that UIUC can comply with Title VI—and protect those who are the victims of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on its campus—without running afoul of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“Since it’s common for the perpetrators of the anti-Semitism on campus to attempt to hide behind the First Amendment, it’s critical we be perfectly clear,” stated Lewin.  “The purpose of this complaint is not to ‘shut down’ anyone’s speech,” she continued. “To the contrary, its goal is to protect Jewish pro-Israel students at UIUC who are being discriminated against, harassed and excluded on the basis of their identity, behaviors not protected under the First Amendment, and to ensure that they can participate in campus life on an equal basis with other students. Anti-Semitism has plagued UIUC for years. Despite being put on notice by students, and years of advocacy by JUF, Hillel, and the Brandeis Center, UIUC’s administration failed to adequately address the problem, making it necessary to file this civil rights complaint and make it public now.”

The UIUC students on whose behalf the complaint was filed are legally represented by Baruch Weiss and Avishai D. Don of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

 

About the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (“LDB” or “Brandeis Center”) is an independent, non-partisan institution for public interest legal advocacy, research and education. The Center’s mission is to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and to promote justice for all. The Brandeis Center is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, nor any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.

About the Jewish United Fund

JUF amplifies our collective strength to make the world a better place—for everyone. Community powered, we consider the totality of local and global Jewish needs and how to address them, providing assistance that transforms daily life for over 500,000 Chicagoans of all faiths; supporting Israel and the Jewish people worldwide; advancing Jewish learning; and cultivating Jewish identity and connection.

About Hillel

 

Founded in 1923, Hillel has been enriching the lives of Jewish students for more than 90 years.  Today, Hillel International is a global organization that welcomes students of all backgrounds and fosters an enduring commitment to Jewish life, learning and Israel. Hillel is dedicated to enriching the lives of Jewish students so that they may enrich the Jewish people and the world.  As the largest Jewish student organization in the world, Hillel builds connections with emerging adults at more than 550 colleges and universities and inspires them to direct their own path. During their formative college years, students are challenged to explore, experience and create vibrant Jewish lives.

LDB’s Press Release

A complaint has been filed with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign over the university’s handling of antisemitic activity on the campus dating back to 2015.  Read the Jewish Insider Article

University of Illinois faces Title VI complaint over antisemitic incidents

By Melissa Weiss ~ Jewish Insider

October 23, 2020

A complaint has been filed with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign over the university’s handling of antisemitic activity on the campus dating back to 2015.

The complaint, first filed in March by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights and announced today, charges that university administrators have “simply not provided the community of pro-Israel, Jewish students with a discrimination-free academic environment.” Jewish Insider viewed excerpts of the filed complaint.

The school was also accused of having “failed to combat anti-Semitism as vigorously as it has combated other forms of bigotry on its campus prohibited by Title VI” after campus police acted within a day to arrest an individual who had hung a noose on the campus.

The university’s press office did not respond to a request for comment.

The complaint lists nearly a dozen incidents, including defacing and destroying property owned by Jewish fraternities and sororities on the campus, the repeated vandalism of the Chabad House’s menorah and the decision by a university vice chancellor to remove a Jewish student from the school’s elections commission over concerns regarding the student’s opposition to the BDS movement.

“Every time I consider doing something Jewish in public I have to think about who might see it,” University of Illinois senior Lauren Nesher told JI. “Will I get doxxed? Will I be endlessly harassed online like other students have been? Will I be attacked as others have been? There’s been property destruction, and swastikas on campus.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) said he understands students’ concerns.

“When you have an event here, an event there, you have an issue, and you need to address it,” Schneider told JI. “When you have a series of events, repeatedly and coming time and again, creating an environment where students feel that they can’t wear a Jewish star or yarmulke, can’t celebrate their passion for their faith or for their connections to the State of Israel without being verbally or in some cases physically attacked for it — it’s not an issue, it’s a real problem at that point. And it needs a response that goes across time and isn’t just at that one moment.”

An executive order signed in December 2019 added antisemitism as a form of discrimination prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The directive came in the place of stalled congressional legislation, and was modeled after guidance laid out by the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, which said that 14 groups, including Jews, “may not be denied protection under Title VI on the ground that they also share a common faith.”

In September, New York University settled a discrimination complaint with the OCR, the first settlement between a university and the OCR since the executive order was signed. The Department of Education does not comment on open cases.

It is important that government officials stress the importance of protecting civil rights in ways that respect the freedom of speech.

Read the Op-Ed Here

By Kenneth L. Marcus ~ October 22, 2020 ~ New York Daily News 

Last year, at a national conference in Manhattan, New York University student Adela Cojab described a pattern of harassment that she and other Jewish students were facing on her campus. After hearing her speak, as was my job, I informed her that if she filed a complaint with the agency that I then headed, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), her claims would be carefully reviewed. Cojab, who has since graduated, did indeed file a formal complaint, and the recently-released resolution of her case sets a monumental new bar for campus anti-Semitism cases.

After learning of her experiences, President Trump praised Cojab, during his remarks at the Israeli American Summit in Florida, for “courageously” standing up against “incredible hostility and incredible bigotry.” The president then introduced Cojab and invited her to tell her story. Cojab explained how NYU had “failed to protect its Jewish community from ongoing harassment, from attacks on social media, to resolutions on student government, to boycotts, flag burnings, and physical assault.”

Standing before the president, this brave young woman expressed gratitude that “as an immigrant myself from Mexico City, I am extremely thankful to live in a country where the Office of Civil Rights takes the concerns of Jewish students seriously.”

A few days later, Trump issued his Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. This order, which codified actions taken earlier by OCR, confirmed that civil rights protections would be extended to Jewish students, and it directed agencies to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Definition of Anti-Semitism. The IHRA definition, which builds on the work of human rights leader Natan Sharansky, provides a consistent understanding of Jew-hatred which officials may use, both here and abroad, to understand and therefore to defeat this ancient bigotry. It is nearly identical to the definition that the U.S. State Department adopted during the Obama-Biden administration under Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Late last month, OCR finally reached a landmark agreement with NYU resolving Cojab’s complaint. Cojab’s case is the first resolved under Trump’s executive order. It sets a new bar for OCR campus anti-Semitism cases, more important even than recent cases at the University of North Carolina, Duke University and Williams College.

The key is that this agreement, for the first time, requires an institution to incorporate the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into their anti-harassment policy. This echoes the recent announcement that Florida State University would voluntarily adopt that definition in response to concerns about anti-Jewish incidents there. On several other campuses, student government bodies have adopted the definition, but approval by the university’s leadership carries more weight.

To build on this success, the Trump administration should call on all colleges to adopt the same definition. This would advance the spirit of the Executive Order, which already incorporates the definition into federal enforcement. Best would be for the administration to follow through on its still-unfulfilled promise that the Department of Education will issue formal regulations implementing the Executive Order.

Such moves would align the United States with allies that have been earlier and more active in responding to similar problems. The United Kingdom has demanded that all U.K. colleges and universities adopt the IHRA definition. Twenty percent have already done so. In the United States, this would be considered a grand success. In the U.K., the Union of Jewish Students is calling for a “culture change” to persuade the rest of academia to follow suit.

The Biden campaign should not allow President Trump to own this issue. Rather, the former vice president should issue a similar admonition to all American colleges and universities. This would give substance to his campaign’s claim that the Biden “has consistently made…combatting anti-Semitism, and fighting for social justice pillars of his decades-long career in public service.” In light of Biden’s repeated efforts to make anti-Semitism an issue in this campaign, it is difficult to see how he can allow Trump to be stronger on fighting this form of bigotry than he is.

As Cojab’s case against New York University demonstrates, this is not about restricting speech. Cojab’s allegations, after all, involved physical assault, which is not protected under anyone’s interpretation of the First Amendment.

In moving forward, it is important that government officials stress the importance of protecting civil rights in ways that respect the freedom of speech. Speech that is critical (or supportive) of Israel, or of any group or nation, should not be censored. This is especially important at universities, where academic freedom is paramount. There should, however, be no tolerance for assault, vandalism and harassment.

Reviewing the latest work of my former OCR colleagues and subordinates fills me with hope. The battle against bigotry continues. OCR continues to fight. Now the only question is whether Trump will continue to lead and whether Biden will seize the day.

Marcus is founder and chairman of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and served as assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights.

 

 

Even on COVID-closed college campuses, some students continue to find ways to harm one another. Recently, anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist incidents have been cause for alarm.

Read the Op-Ed Here

By Kenneth L. Marcus

October 22, 2020

The Forward

The Government Must Do More to Address Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism on Campus

Even on COVID-closed college campuses, some students continue to find ways to harm one another. Recently, anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist incidents have been cause for alarm. A recent move by the Education Department to change the guidance on reporting campus antisemitic vandalism is good, but there is still much more to do.

At the University of Delaware, an arsonist set fire to the Chabad Center in September, causing $200,000 in damage. At the University of Southern California, a student-government leader represented by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law resigned her post in August under pressure from anti-Israel activists who had vowed to “impeach her Zionist ass.”

Hillel International recently reported a record high of 178 antisemitic incidents during the 2019-2020 academic year at the 550 North American colleges where it operates. More broadly, the Anti-Defamation League said in its most recent report that there were more antisemitic incidents in 2019 than any year since ADL’s tracking began in 1979.

Fortunately, institutions have begun taking serious measures to address this. This summer, Florida State University became the first American campus to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. This was a critical step, because in order to combat this ancient bigotry, officials must learn to define and recognize it.

In late September, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, where I worked as assistant secretary from 2018-2020, required New York University to adopt that same definition as part of its anti-harassment policy. This was a natural outgrowth from last year’s Executive Order on Combating Antisemitism, which directed federal agencies to use the IHRA definition as well. I left the office this summer to return to the Brandeis Center and to give the fight against campus antisemitism the focused legal attention that it requires.

It is good that federal regulators and some college and university administrators are responding to antisemitic incidents as they occur, but it would be better if they took more pro-active steps to prevent such things from happening.

One such step would be for federal officials to urge all colleges and universities to follow NYU and Florida State’s lead, incorporating the IHRA definition into their policies and procedures. The United Kingdom moved in early 2020 to compel its colleges to do so, and a fifth of them have complied so far.

It would also help for our Education Department to issue formal regulations implementing the executive order to give it durability. The government has indicated that it plans to do this, listing such regulations in its unified agenda and regulatory plan, but the Department has not yet issued a notice of proposed rulemaking. Given the Department’s limited regulatory bandwidth and substantial to-do list, it is clear that the Department will not be able to accomplish everything it proposes by the end of the current presidential term. The Department must prioritize these regulations or they will not get done.

Beyond ensuring that antisemitism is properly defined, regulators must properly monitor it and report it to the public.

A recent Forward investigation revealed that colleges have systematically underreported anti-Jewish hate crimes. This was at least partly due to vague and misleading provisions in the Education Department’s Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting. University officials told the Forward) that this handbook prevented them from reporting swastikas and antisemitic slurs at Bowdoin College (“Heil Hitler”) and Temple University (“Fuck you, Jews!”).

This month, the Education Department responded to criticisms by rescinding the Handbook, replacing it with a short, vague, and non-binding appendix. Colleges are now being told that they may voluntarily comply with the discredited handbook. This hardly solves the problem.

Now, colleges have essentially no guidance on the applicable reporting requirements. Education and Justice should provide better direction, at a minimum making clear that swastikas and such slurs are antisemitic and should be reported to the federal government when they appear in vandalism or other crimes.

The Education Department also has to stop exacerbating the problem. For years, commentators have complained that campus climates are worsened by federally funded Middle East Studies programs created in response to Title VI of the Higher Education Act.

That provision was intended to bolster U.S. defense and intelligence capabilities by fostering a pipeline of multilingual college graduates. In recent years, however, these programs have focused less on language than on culture and politics. Worse, their politics has often been monolithically anti-Israel, arguably to the point of indoctrination.

During the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2008, Congress required such programs to provide “diverse perspectives” and a “wide range of views” in order to receive Title VI grants. Unfortunately, the Education Department never gave this requirement teeth. In recent years, Department officials have only addressed the requirement through ad-hoc investigations. If the Department is serious about reform, it should issue formal regulations.

Finally, the government must acknowledge that campus climates are sometimes worsened by foreign funding. Only in the last year have officials even acknowledged that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are infusing hundreds of millions of dollars into American universities. There is, at a minimum, an appearance that this funding translates into anti-Israel academic programming and then, predictably, into toxically anti-Jewish atmospheres.

Universities have failed to disclose vast sums of such financing, despite federal rules requiring it. Federal regulators have recently exposed universities for such violations, chastising them with angry letters and intensive investigations.

This is helpful, but also relatively weak. If our government is serious about addressing this abuse, it should fine lawbreakers for their failure to provide mandated disclosures. Given the hundreds of millions of dollars involved, requiring institutions to disgorge even a percentage of illicit funds would curb the practice.

Federal efforts to date have been helpful but incomplete. Some, like the Executive Order, have been enormously important. Their ramifications are still unfolding. Others have been more incremental.

What is needed, however, is a comprehensive approach. This must include energetic administration of the executive order, proper guidance on reporting, greater inclusiveness in Middle East studies, and appropriate transparency for foreign funds. Otherwise, when college campuses fully open, the situation for Jewish students will only worsen.

Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (2018-2020).

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.
Washington, D.C., October 20, 2020:  The Louis D Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is pleased to announce the appointment of  Jesse A. Witten, to the position of   LDB Legal Advisory Board member. Mr. Witten’s arrival coincides with an expansion of the Center’s staff to address historic increases in anti-Semitic activity, especially in educational institutions. Over the last two months, the Center has announced the return of Chairman Kenneth Marcus, as well as the arrival of Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober,  Executive Administrator Lynda Prior, and JIGSAW Coordinator Rachel Frommer.

Chairman Kenneth Marcus comments: “I have known Jesse for many years, and I am delighted that he is joining us at the Brandeis Center. His wise counsel, legal acumen, and wide experience in both the public and private sectors, including his background as a former high-ranking official of the U.S. Department of Justice, will be great resources for the Center to draw upon.”

“I am honored to be joining the LDB Legal Advisory Board at the Brandeis Center,” Mr. Witten stated. “The Brandeis Center has established itself as a leading force in combating anti-Semitism on all too many college campuses. I look forward to contributing to the Center’s growth and success in combating the current upsurge in anti- Semitic sentiment.”

LDB President Alyza Lewin said, “I am delighted to welcome to the Brandeis Center as a new colleague, an old friend who I have known since our college days at Princeton. Jesse’s wisdom and extensive experience will enhance our legal advisory board and enrich our organization’s capabilities. It’s a pleasure to have him on board.”

About Jesse A. Witten
Jesse Witten is a partner in the Washington office of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, where his practice focuses on defending clients in False Claims Act investigations and litigations. He is well known for his representations of clients in the health care sector, and formerly served as Deputy Associate Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice.

Watch Alyza Lewin’s Presentation Here

~ 

LDB President Alyza Lewin will be presenting at the U.S. State Department’s upcoming virtual conference on combatting online anti-Semitism entitled “Ancient Hatred, Modern Medium.” The two-day conference will include presentations by Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo; Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Elan Carr; Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu; members of the US Congress, the UK Parliament and the Israeli Knesset; the EC Coordinator on Combatting Anti-Semitism; the President of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Ms. Lewin’s pre-recorded remarks will be broadcast on Wednesday afternoon, October 21, 2020 as part of the “Legislative Framework” session. Please join us on the afternoons of October 21 and 22 for this groundbreaking event – the first time the US government has hosted a conference devoted exclusively to the issue of combatting online anti-Semitism.

Watch the Entire Virtual Conference Here