PRESS RELEASE ~ Contact: Nicole Rosen – 202-309-5724 U.S. Dept. of Education Opens Investigation Into Anti-Semitism at Brooklyn College Professors Maligned Jews as White, Privileged Oppressors and Advanced Age-Old Tropes Concerning Jewish Power Washington, D.C., February 3: The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced it has opened a formal investigation into a complaint alleging Jewish students at Brooklyn College have been subjected to severe and persistent anti-Semitic harassment from both professors and peers. OCR evaluates all complaints it receives, but it only pursues investigations in those it determines warrant a more thorough investigation. The complaint OCR will investigate was submitted on behalf of Jewish students in the Mental Health Counseling master’s program at Brooklyn College and alleges that Brooklyn College has allowed a hostile environment to proliferate on its campus in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was prepared by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. The OCR complaint outlines how professors have maligned Jews on the basis of race and ethnic identity, advancing age-old anti-Semitic tropes concerning Jewish power, conspiracy and control, and endorsing the narrative that Jews are “white” and privileged and therefore contribute to systemic oppression of people of color. For example, in one class a professor stated that Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated to America have become part of the oppressors in this country. In another instance when students were asked to rank their identities, and a Jewish student ranked Jewish identity before white identity, the Jewish student was berated and told they are part of the dominant culture that does not understand oppression. Relegating Jewish students into white-only categories occurred multiple times in the program. Fellow students also bullied and harassed Jewish students in classes and on social media using the same ethnic stereotypes, tropes and divisive concepts that faculty promoted in their courses. For example, in a WhatsApp student group chat, a student expressed her desire to strangle a Jewish student and others showed support. When another Jewish student came to the victim’s defense, the student who made the attack accused the Jewish student of being racist, claiming they were “part of the dominant culture” of “white people” who “continue to perpetuate power structures.” When the Jewish students asked college administrators to intervene and establish ground rules against threats and bullying, fellow students objected that ground rules do not apply when racism needs to be called out, assigning Jews the role of racist oppressors. “By advancing the racist and ethnic stereotype that all Jews are ‘white’ and ‘privileged’ and therefore oppress people of color, faculty members, students and course assignments in the [Mental Health Counseling] program thereby invoke the classical anti-Semitic trope that Jews possess disproportionate power and influence in society, which they use for nefarious purposes against non-Jews, while also subjecting them to racial stereotypes about ‘whites,’” explained the Brandeis Center in its complaint. Jewish students who challenged these divisive narratives or shared their distress about the anti-Jewish hostility in the program were met with further harassment and intimidation from faculty and administrators, who told students to “get your whiteness in check” and to “keep your head down” rather than challenge the status quo. For example, when one of the Jewish students tried to explain to an administrator that Jews should not have to identify as white, the administrator told the student that was a foregone conclusion. When another Jewish student explained they are in fact a Hispanic person of color, an administrator implied being Jewish automatically supersedes Latin descent and makes one white and privileged. The severe and persistent harassment of Jewish students in the program on the basis of their race and ethnicity has created a hostile climate. In this hostile environment, Jewish students are afraid that if they express their views in class or to their peers, they will be further disparaged and harassed by their professors and other students. Class participation is not only a requirement in many first-year courses, but is also an important opportunity for budding mental health counselors to develop their interpersonal and professional communication skills. According to the Brandeis Center complaint, despite repeatedly being placed on notice of the developing hostile environment on Brooklyn College’s campus, the administration failed to take the measures necessary to provide Jewish students with a discrimination-free academic setting. “Fighting bigotry should not be a competition between minority groups; it’s not a zero sum game,” stated Denise Katz-Prober, Brandeis Center Director of Legal Initiatives. “Yet, once again, in a university program for mental health professionals, Jews are told they must identify as white, are called privileged, and are accused of being oppressors. This runs completely counter to Jewish history. It utterly ignores centuries of Jewish discrimination and murder, which we are frighteningly seeing resurface, and it promotes dangerous age-old anti-Semitic tropes concerning Jewish power, conspiracy and control. Training mental health professionals to oppose racism is a laudatory and important endeavor, but you can’t erase, let alone promote, anti-Semitism in the process.” A similar complaint, filed by the Brandeis Center alleging anti-Semitism at Stanford University, is currently being reviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). It alleges that Stanford’s Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) division created and fostered a hostile and unwelcoming environment for Jewish mental health professionals in its DEI program by advancing the same narrative — that all Jews are white and privileged and therefore contribute to the systemic oppression of people of color. EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas recently called those allegations, “deeply troubling.” Lucas specifically highlighted serious concerns about the “segregation of Jewish employees in white affirming and white passing affinity groups, separated out from other individuals of color” that took place at Stanford during CAPS DEI training. In announcing it will investigate the Brandeis Center’s allegations of discrimination and harassment by faculty and students, OCR clarified that course assignments and instructional materials will not be considered, as they fall outside the Department’s purview. Those were included as background materials to support the allegations, and the Brandeis Center did not expect OCR to investigate them separately. Numerous universities, including the University of Illinois, Williams College, the University of North Carolina, Duke University and NYU, have agreed to implement steps to combat rising anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination threatening Jewish students on their campuses. In addition, the University of Southern California recently announced measures to combat anti-Semitism that has created a hostile environment for many Jewish students, including the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Jewish Life and ensuring Jewish representation in DEI efforts. 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.
eJewish Philanthropy | eJP ~ By Ben Sales | February 2, 2022 ~ The U.S. Department of Education has repeatedly delayed a process that aims to codify civil rights protections for Jewish college students, eJewishPhilanthropy has learned. The delays have taken place under the presidential administrations of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and relate to Trump’s 2019 Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, which Biden has kept on the books. The order mandates that the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) include Jews in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits federally funded programs, including public universities, from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin. The order also requires government officials to consider a widely used working definition of antisemitism, from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), when adjudicating Title VI antisemitism allegations. The expanded version of the definition says that certain criticisms of Israel — such as calling it a racist endeavor — cross the line into antisemitism. The uncertainty brought on by the delays comes as Jewish students across the country have faced what they and Jewish communal officials say is a hostile campus atmosphere. At the same time, the executive order sparked debate over the limits of political speech on campus, including when and whether criticism of Israel should be treated as antisemitism. In spring 2020, about five months after Trump signed the executive order, his administration’s Education Department said it would issue proposed regulations to enforce the order. The regulations were initially set to be issued in September 2020. But that month came and went, and that fall, another announcement pushed the expected issuance date three months to January 2021, the chaotic month when the administrations transitioned. The Biden administration has stretched out the delays nearly two years beyond that date, and added that the proposed regulations would also address another executive order focused on racial equity. The Education Department first pushed the proposed regulations to January 2022, and then delayed them 11 more months — to this coming December. Despite the successive delays, Jewish leaders are hopeful that the regulations will arrive — but some worry that officials aren’t taking the issue seriously enough. Others say the delays are natural in an administration’s first year, noting that Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who heads the OCR, was confirmed only in October. “Catherine Lhamon has been very receptive to our concerns,” Mark Rotenberg, Hillel International’s vice president of university initiatives and legal affairs, told eJP. “The OCR leadership has been very attentive to the requests and positions of the Jewish community leaders.” He added, “One of the things that we are very keen on is the passage of a new federal regulation that would be codified [and] that would specifically call out the protections embodied in other documents over many years for Jewish students under Title VI.” Jewish leaders said they were encouraged by a December video meeting they had with Lhamon. The meeting included representatives from a long list of major Jewish groups — including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Hillel International, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai Brith International, The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) and more. Jewish groups also met earlier in the year with another official from OCR. “We do have the sense that she’s taking this seriously, and we welcome the communication that we’ve had with her,” Eric Fusfield, B’nai Brith’s director of legislative affairs, who spearheaded the meeting, told eJP. “We hope that some of these complaints will be acted on, that the department will address its caseload and that they will use their influence to project the urgency of fighting antisemitism and use whatever tools they have in their toolkit to combat the problem.” In a statement to eJP, an Education Department spokesperson did not address the delay in the proposed regulations, but said that in January, “OCR opened multiple investigations into allegations of discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry at postsecondary institutions.” The spokesperson said that as a policy, OCR does not discuss the details of the investigations, but said the office had released resources to schools that discussed antisemitism. Some Jewish leaders active in fighting campus antisemitism — including Lhamon’s predecessor in the position, Kenneth Marcus, who was appointed by Trump — want the department to do more. Marcus said that under Trump, the initial delay in issuing the proposed regulations was due to a backlog at OCR, and that that could be the case under Biden as well. But he said the 11-month postponement is nonetheless concerning, and added that the OCR under Trump took other public actions to stress that it was prioritizing campus antisemitism, like speaking out on the issue in public forums and issuing detailed guidance on the executive order. “This might simply be a reflection of the agency’s significant workload, and frankly December 2022 is not that far away,” said Marcus, who served as assistant secretary of education for civil rights from June 2018 to July 2020. “On the other hand, coming at the end of a year in which we saw record levels of antisemitism, it is not a great look for the administration to be delaying its work on antisemitism.” Marcus also founded the Brandeis Center, which opposes the movement to boycott Israel and has filed several Title VI complaints on behalf of Jewish and pro-Israel students. “I believe that Assistant Secretary Catherine Lhamon is sincere about wanting to address antisemitism and that she has some understanding of the huge problems that Jewish students are facing,” he said. “She can use the bully pulpit in a lot of different ways. She can make speeches. She can issue statements.” Jewish groups are pushing the adoption of regulations in part out of concern that Trump’s executive order may be rescinded in the future, or that the Department of Education could stop using the IHRA definition as a reference. While the definition has been adopted by a broad range of countries, international bodies, universities and even sports teams, it has drawn opposition from pro-Palestinian activists and others. Some supporters of Israel, including the Reform movement, are wary that it will have a chilling effect on free speech if codified into law. Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the document, has also advocated in recent years that it not be given legal force. “J Street opposed the [executive order] when it was issued as a misguided and harmful effort to declare a broad range of nonviolent campus criticism of Israel to be antisemitic,” Debra Shushan, director of government affairs for the liberal Israel lobby J Street, told eJP. “We urge President Biden to rescind the EO, not issue federal regulations that would render it permanent.” The administrations of former President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush had also both extended Title VI protections to Jewish students, and had endorsed predecessors to the IHRA definition. But Trump officially linked the definition with Title VI complaints, bringing it to bear on college campuses that are often flashpoints of debate over Israel and Zionism. “Since an executive order could be revoked in the future… DOE’s potential rulemaking was welcome as a way to cement the use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in Title VI protections, sending a clear message to universities and other education centers that benefit from federal funding that the Biden administration takes seriously evolving and growing threats of antisemitism,” a Jewish official familiar with the meeting with Lhamon told eJP. Leading up to Biden’s inauguration, both the Conference of Presidents and Jewish Federations of North America urged him to adopt the IHRA definition, which his State Department did fewer than two weeks after taking office. Trump’s executive order is still in effect, even as Biden has worked to reverse a range of Trump’s other policies. Carly Gammill, director of the StandWithUs Center for Combating Antisemitism, told eJP, “We are not aware of the criteria or definitions shifting in any way, including any way that would affect Title VI complaints.” But she and others said they’d still like faster action on Title VI complaints, in addition to public signals from the OCR that it’s not leaving antisemitism by the wayside. Adam Teitelbaum, the executive director of JFNA’s Israel Action Network, said the OCR should “make clear that protecting Jewish and pro-Israel students from antisemitism and harassment or worse is a top priority, and that the department fully supports the use” of the IHRA definition. Given what he’s heard from OCR officials, in addition to the State Department’s adoption of the IHRA definition, Conference of Presidents CEO William Daroff said he’s “cautiously optimistic” that the definition will remain part of Title VI proceedings as well. “If the administration is encouraging foreign governments and international organizations to adopt the IHRA definition with their right hand, it would be pretty complicated for them with their left hand to state the exact opposite” regarding college campuses, Daroff told eJP. “At the end of the day, we want to protect Jewish college students, and this is the process in place to ensure that they’re protected.”
AP News – February 1, 2022 – NEW YORK (AP) — Whoopi Goldberg expressed regret Tuesday for saying on “The View” a day earlier that race was not a factor in the Holocaust, saying she was “deeply, deeply grateful” for getting an education on the topic. “The View” brought on Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League and author of “It Could Happen Here,” to discuss why her words had been hurtful. The flare-up over Goldberg’s remarks this week highlighted the enduring complexity of some race-related issues, including the widespread but strongly contested notion that only people of color can be victims of racism. That appeared to be at the root of original comments by Goldberg, who is Black. On Monday’s episode of “The View,” she said the Holocaust was “not about race … it’s about man’s inhumanity to other man.” Panelists on the show had been talking about a Tennessee school board’s banning of “Maus,” a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Nazi death camps during World War II. “My words upset so many people, which was never my intention,” she said. “I understand why now and for that I am deeply, deeply grateful because the information I got was really helpful and helped me understand some different things.” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, praised Goldberg for being outspoken over the years on social issues but said he struggled to understand her statement on the Holocaust. “The only explanation that I have for it is that there is a new definition of racism that has been put out there in the public recently that defines racism exclusively as the targeting of people of color. And obviously history teaches us otherwise,” Cooper said. “Everything about Nazi Germany and about the targeting of the Jews and about the Holocaust was about race and racism. That’s the unfortunate, unassailable historic fact,” he said. Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, linked Goldberg’s remarks to broader misconceptions of the Holocaust, Jewish identity and antisemitism. “In her error, she was reflecting a misunderstanding of Jewish identity that is both widespread and dangerous that is sometimes described as erasive antisemitism,” said Marcus, who is the author of ‘The Definition of Anti-Semitism.’ “It is the notion that Jews should be viewed only as being white, privileged oppressors,” he said. “It denies Jewish identity and involves a whitewashing of Jewish history.” Marcus referred to the use of anti-Jewish stereotypes “about being powerful, controlling and sinister,” coupled with downplaying or denying antisemitism. In Israel, being Jewish is rarely seen in racial terms, in part because of the country’s great diversity. The Jewish population, which makes up about 80% of the overall population, includes Jews with roots in Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa as well as recent immigrants from such places as the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. Yet Jewish identity goes far beyond religion. Israelis typically refer to the “Jewish people” or “Jewish nation,” describing a group or civilization bound together by a shared history, culture, language and traditions and deep ties to Jewish communities overseas. Goldberg’s apology via Twitter on Monday night, where she said she was sorry for the hurt that she caused, was welcomed by Jewish leaders in the U.S., and the chairman of Israel’s national Holocaust memorial invited her for an educational visit. Goldberg’s “apology and clarification are important,” said Yad Vashem chairman Dani Dayan, who invited her to the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem to “learn more about the causes, events and aftermath of the Holocaust.” His statement said Goldberg’s original comments indicated “a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Holocaust & antisemitism.” On “The View” Monday, Goldberg had expressed surprise that some Tennessee school board members were uncomfortable about nudity in “Maus.” “I mean, it’s about the Holocaust, the killing of 6 million people, but that didn’t bother you?” she said. “If you’re going to do this, then let’s be truthful about it. Because the Holocaust isn’t about race. No, it’s not about race.” She continued on that line despite pushback from some of her fellow panelists. The U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington responded to Goldberg with a tweet. “Racism was central to Nazi ideology. Jews were not defined by religion, but by race. Nazi racist beliefs fueled genocide and mass murder,” it said. That tweet also included a link to the museum’s online encyclopedia, which said the Nazis attributed negative stereotypes about Jews to a biologically determined racial heritage. On Twitter, there were several calls for Goldberg’s firing, where it appeared caught up in the familiar debates between left and right. There was no immediate comment from ABC News, which oversees “The View.” Greenblatt said the talk show, in the market for a new co-host following last summer’s departure of Meghan McCain, should consider hiring a Jewish woman to keep the issue of antisemitism in the forefront. ___ AP correspondents Luis Andres Henao in Princeton, N.J. and Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
Brandeis Brief: February 2022 We hope your year is off to a good start. This month the Brandeis Center hosted a discussion about combatting anti-Semitism in the workplace with members of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC Commissioners discussed different forms of anti-Semitic discrimination in the workplace and highlighted the “deeply troubling” allegations that the Brandeis Center exposed about Stanford University’s DEI program. Also this month, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case about discrimination in college admissions and LDB’s amicus brief filed in the case was highlighted by national and local media. LDB attorneys wrote about the lessons and impact of the anti-Semitic hostage-taking in Colleyville, Texas on January 15. Read about these and other developments at the Center in this month’s Brief. As always, we thank you for your tax-deductible donations and acknowledge that without you our work could not be done. The Brandeis Center and EEOC Commissioners discuss anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination in the workplace Federal Civil Rights Officials Raise Alarm Over “Horrifying Statistics” on Anti-Semitism in Workplace (JNS) On January 10, LBD hosted a public webinar featuring two EEOC Commissioners, who discussed ways to combat anti-Jewish discrimination in the workplace amid a nationwide surge of anti-Semitism. The Commissioners approvingly cited LDB’s recent survey of Jewish college students to demonstrate “horrifying statistics” about the rise in anti-Semitism. The Commissioners also described LDB’s allegations against Stanford University in a pending complaint before the EEOC as “deeply troubling” and expressed support for the widespread media attention these claims have gained. Read the EEOC Commissioner’s Power Point presentation here Read LDB’s Press Release here Read news coverage of the webinar here New York Times and other media outlets highlight LDB’s amicus brief in Supreme Court’s affirmative action case The Supreme Court granted certiorari, as LDB urged in its amicus brief, in two cases involving allegations that Harvard and U.N.C.’s admissions policies discriminate against Asian-American and white applicants. The New York Times quoted LDB’s Kenneth L. Marcus and highlighted the “friend of the court” brief filed by LDB and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, which argued that Harvard is discriminating against Asian American applicants today using the same methods the school used to discriminate against Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s. LDB’s brief was also covered by national and local media, including CBS News. Read the New York Times article here Watch Kenneth Marcus’ comments on CBS This Morning’s coverage of the Harvard case here Read LDB’s Press Release here Read LDB’s amicus brief here Colleyville Poses An Urgent Question: Will Biden Take Antisemitism Seriously? Kenneth L. Marcus (Newsweek)LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus discusses the lessons federal policymakers should draw from the recent kidnapping at a synagogue in Colleyville, TX. Marcus highlights the recurring failure of law enforcement and government officials to understand the anti-Semitic motivation behind crimes that target Jews, the consequences of rampant anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories circulating on the internet and on campus, and the urgent need for the Biden administration to address rising anti-Semitism. Read the article here Read additional media coverage here AMP Should Inspire Dialogue Not Inspire Division Jacob Baime (Times of Israel) The CEO of Israel on Campus Coalition, Jacob Baime, calls on prominent Muslim advocacy groups to reject divisive anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric and instead “embrace the concept of constructive dialogue.” Baime urges these Muslim community organizations to stop separating Zionism from Judaism and to accept the reality, as described by LDB President Alyza Lewin, that Zionism is an integral component of Jewish identity for most Jewish Americans. Read the article here Battling Antisemitism on Campus (Hadassah Magazine)In this expose about the modern face of anti-Semitism on campus today, LDB President Alyza Lewin and student leaders discuss the increasing pressure felt by Jewish students in progressive circles to hide or shed their Jewish identity in order to avoid anti-Semitism. Lewin describes how LDB uses legal and educational tools to push back against anti-Semitic discrimination and educate administrators about how to recognize and prevent anti-Semitism on campus. Read the article here Watch the video here Campus Anti-Semitism and US Law (The Times of Israel) LDB President Alyza Lewin spoke at Congregation Beth Am in Palo Alto, CA about how the Brandeis Center uses Title VI to protect Jewish students from discrimination at colleges and universities nationwide. Lewin explained the importance of recognizing and defining discrimination that targets Jewish students for marginalization and exclusion on campus because of their support for the State of Israel. Read the article here Watch Alyza Lewin’s presentation, Is Today’s Campus Climate Safe For Jews, here Global anti-Semitism reaches nearly all 10 stages of genocide Kenneth L. Marcus (JNS)In his timely column, Kenneth Marcus, explains why recent anti-Semitic incidents have met several of the “Ten Stages of Genocide.” Marcus urges readers to understand the gathering threat faced by world Jewry today as a call to action in order to ensure that history does not repeat itself. Read the article here
Jewish News Syndicate ~ By Kenneth L. Marcus ~ (January 27, 2022 / JNS) On Jan. 27, we commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day, honoring the 6 million Jews killed in the Nazi genocide, as well as the millions of other victims who were persecuted during that era. This remembrance will be meaningless, however, if we do not seriously consider the gathering threat faced by world Jewry today. To understand the seriousness of this threat, consider how it measures under Dr. Gregory Stanton’s canonical classification of the “Ten Stages of Genocide.” The first stage, “Classification,” refers to the division of people into “us” versus “them.” It is now widespread on American college campuses. Known to anti-Israel activists as “anti-normalization,” it can be seen, for example, in the 2018 pledge by more than 50 New York University student groups to boycott pro-Israel student groups on campus, as well as national pro-Israel organizations. The continual effort is to push Jewish students “beyond the pale” unless they join forces with groups that make war against Jewish identity. To address this early-stage activity, we must strengthen institutions that can inculcate universalistic Western values, such as equal respect and civil discourse. The second stage, “Symbolization,” can be seen, for example, in Proud Boys’ apparel emblazoned with “6MWE,” which stands for “Six Million Wasn’t Enough.” It is also seen in alt-right use of parentheses, such as the triple parentheses used on neo-Nazi sites to indicate Jewish ancestry. On such sites, I have seen triple parentheses placed around my own head, suggesting something like a marksman’s bullseye. But it is most often seen in swastikas used to communicate hate. It is high time for the U.S. Department of Education to address higher-education’s massive under-reporting of swastikas under the Clery Act. The third stage, “Discrimination,” is seen when Jewish pro-Israel students are forced out of student government positions. In the last couple of years, the Brandeis Center has successfully defended Jewish students against such discrimination at Tufts University and the University of Southern California. Stronger civil-rights enforcement is needed, starting with codification of the federal Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. The fourth stage, “Dehumanization,” can be seen when anti-Semites treat Jews as animals or as demons. In 2010, Egypt’s then-president Muhamad Morsi called Jews the “sons of apes and pigs.” Such dehumanizing insults are a common feature of Muslim anti-Semitism. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan exemplified this demonization when he called Judaism the “synagogue of Satan.” Dehumanization, in both forms, should be taken seriously and condemned vigorously. The fifth stage, “Organization,” can refer to the development of special army units or militias. Kyle Chapman, a founder of the Proud Boys’ “tactical defense arm,” promised to “confront the Zionist criminals who wish to destroy our civilization.” On Jan. 6, we saw that such far-right racist groups are capable of organizing for political violence. Federal officials should vigorously prosecute violent extremists, regardless of political orientation, whenever they engage in criminal activity. The sixth, “Polarization,” could be seen last weekend when the Denver area was hit with fliers claiming that, “Every single aspect of the COVID agenda is Jewish.” This week, similar fliers have been distributed in Colorado, Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, California and Maryland, blaming Jews for public-health failures. Such activity should trigger a revamping of public diversity, equity and inclusion programs that either omit anti-Semitism or, worse, perpetuate stereotypes about Jewish power. The seventh stage, “Preparation,” refers to plans to exterminate a group, which we can see internationally. In May 2020, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was calling for the genocide of Jews in propaganda that invoked a “final solution.” This is the context in which we must understand Iran’s rapid progress towards producing weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Such preparations should give urgency to concerns, recently reportedly expressed by American diplomatic officials, that the U.S. negotiation posture with Iran is indefensibly weak. The eighth stage, “Persecution,” generally refers to forced displacement, ghettos and concentration camps, although it may also include the street violence that Jewish Americans faced in several U.S. cities last May. Internationally, it could be seen after World War II, as Jewish communities faced forced displacement and property expropriation in various parts of the Arab world. This resulted in the complete eradication of a Jewish presence from some countries. Today, the Abrahamic Accords has turned the tide in the other participating Arab countries. Elsewhere in the Muslim world, however, Jews are avoiding this fate only because the lands have become virtually Judenfrei (“free of Jews”). The ninth stage, “Extermination,” refers literally to mass murder. Extermination has been attempted, in particular settings, at the 2018 Tree of Life*Or L’Simcha Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, when Robert Gregory Bowers allegedly murdered 11 Jewish worshippers during Shabbat-morning services and wounded six others. It was also attempted at Chabad of Poway, Calif., a year later, when 19-year-old gunman John Timothy Earnest fatally shot a 60-year-old woman and injured three others, including the rabbi. Such tragedy was averted earlier this month in Colleyville, Texas, after four Jewish hostages escaped from armed assailant Malik Faisal Akram, who had vowed last year, “I want to kill Jews.” While wider efforts at extermination may not be conceivable to many Jews, they are sadly less inconceivable with each passing tragedy. The last stage is “Denial,” which is common among perpetrators of mass violence. Holocaust denial remains widespread, drawing upon an ideology that sees Jews as powerful, sinister and conspiratorial enough to perpetrate an enormous hoax. At a lower level, anti-Semitism denial is performed after nearly every anti-Jewish incident, when perpetrators insist that their actions should not be described as anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism denial is institutionalized by groups that resist adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of anti-Semitism, which is the single most important tool for identifying anti-Jewish behavior. To say that recent anti-Semitic incidents have reached most, if not all, stages of genocide is not to say that we are now in 1941 Germany. Comparisons to the Holocaust are invariably hyperbolic and often indecent. Nevertheless, the occurrence of incidents at so many stages in this process should be cause for significant cause for more than worry. It should be a call to action to ensure that genocide does not recur. Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and author of “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.” He served as the 11th Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights.
New York Times By Adam Liptak and Anemona Hartocollis Jan. 24, 2022 ~ WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are lawful, raising serious doubts about the future of affirmative action in higher education. The court has repeatedly upheld similar programs, most recently in 2016. But the court’s membership has tilted right in recent years, and its new conservative supermajority is almost certain to view the challenged programs with skepticism, imperiling more than 40 years of precedent that said race could be used as one factor among many in evaluating applicants. “Affirmative action has repeatedly been administered last rites during the last five decades,” said Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale. “But these two cases unmistakably pose the gravest threats yet to affirmative action’s continued vitality.” The case against Harvard accused it of discriminating against Asian American students by using a subjective standard to gauge traits like likability, courage and kindness and by effectively creating a ceiling for them in admissions. Lawyers for Harvard said the challengers had relied on a flawed statistical analysis and denied that the university discriminated against Asian American applicants. More generally, they said race-conscious admissions policies are lawful. In the North Carolina case, the plaintiffs made a more familiar argument, saying the university discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Hispanic and Native American ones. The university responded that its admissions policies fostered educational diversity and were lawful under longstanding Supreme Court precedents. If the Supreme Court follows its usual practices, it will hear arguments in its next term, which starts in October. A decision is not likely until the spring or summer of 2023. The cases will test the newly bolstered conservative majority’s commitment to precedent. As in recent cases on abortion, there are reasons to think that the majority will not hesitate to overrule major precedents if it views them to be egregiously wrong. The possibility of a ruling that would either restrict or prohibit race as a consideration in admissions would reverberate widely across higher education and could fundamentally reshape college admissions in the years to come. Such a ruling would, all concerned agree, also likely reduce the number of Black and Latino students at nearly every selective college and graduate school, with more Asian American and white students gaining admission instead. Both of the affirmative action cases were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by Edward Blum, a legal entrepreneur who has organized many lawsuits challenging race-conscious admissions policies and voting rights laws, several of which have reached the Supreme Court. In a statement, Mr. Blum said he welcomed the court’s decision to hear the cases. “Harvard and the University of North Carolina have racially gerrymandered their freshman classes in order to achieve prescribed racial quotas,” he said. “Every college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as some representative of a racial or ethnic group.” Harvard and the University of North Carolina said in statements that the decision to hear the cases would jeopardize what has become a fundamental principle of college admissions. Lawrence S. Bacow, the president of Harvard, said the challenge “puts at risk 40 years of legal precedent granting colleges and universities the freedom and flexibility to create diverse campus communities.” Beth Keith, a spokeswoman for the University of North Carolina, said its admissions program “allows for an evaluation of each student in a deliberate and thoughtful way.” The universities both won in federal trial courts, and the decision in Harvard’s favor was affirmed by a federal appeals court. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear both cases may have been influenced by the differing legal regimes that apply to the two schools. Harvard, a private entity, must comply with a federal statute that bans race discrimination as a condition of receiving federal money; the University of North Carolina, which is public, must also satisfy the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Damon Hewitt, the president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, which represents students and alumni defending the programs, said they served a vital role. “Selective universities like Harvard and U.N.C.-Chapel Hill have long struggled to admit students of color, who have over time been excluded for access to elite institutions and are historically marginalized,” Mr. Hewitt said. “Race-conscious admissions policies are a critical tool that ensures students of color are not overlooked in a process that does not typically value their determination, accomplishments and immense talents.” But Kenneth L. Marcus, who served as assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department in the Trump administration, said Harvard’s treatment of Asian students was reminiscent of its efforts to limit Jewish enrollment. “Just as Harvard in the 1930s thought that Jewish students lacked the character to make them good Harvard men,” he said, “so today they often view Asian students as lacking the appropriate character.” The case has divided Asian Americans. Jason Xu, the president of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, which filed a brief supporting the challengers in the Harvard case, said many Asian Americans believe that their academically high-performing children were passed over because they were of Asian descent. But another group, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, took the opposite tack, saying in a statement that affirmative action was necessary because “the reality is that race continues to unfairly limit educational opportunities for students of color.” The group added that “cold numerical indicators like grade point averages and standardized test scores capture and magnify these inequalities.” Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, said it was time for a course correction. “In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, universities have become obsessed with racial preferences to a degree that I have not seen in my 15 years in academia,” he said. “It seems like nothing is more important than race anymore.” Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, drew the opposite lesson from the national debate over racial justice. “Broad public awareness of the unrelenting impact of racism demands a recommitment to affirmative action, not its abandonment,” he said in a statement. Polls have found conflicting levels of support for affirmative action. Most Americans believe that it is important to promote racial and ethnic diversity in the workplace and that there is still racism in American society. Nonetheless, a Pew Research Center survey in 2019 found that 73 percent of Americans said colleges and universities should not consider race or ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions. And in 2020, California voters refused to overturn a state ban on consideration of race, ethnicity and gender in public higher education and government jobs and contracts. The decision to revisit affirmative action comes as the credibility of elite university admissions is under assault from other directions. A federal investigation known as Operation Varsity Blues revealed a sweeping scheme to get students admitted to prestigious universities as fake athletic recruits, or by cheating on college entrance exams, in exchange for bribes from wealthy parents. The ringleader was an admissions consultant, and the case did not directly implicate universities. A lawsuit filed in federal court this month accused 16 of the nation’s leading private universities and colleges of conspiring to reduce the financial aid they award to admitted students through a price-fixing cartel. The accused universities have denied wrongdoing. In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld an admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin, holding that officials there could continue to consider race as a factor in ensuring a diverse student body. The vote was 4 to 3. (Justice Antonin Scalia had died a few months before, and Justice Elena Kagan was recused.) Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that courts must give universities substantial but not total leeway in devising their admissions programs. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. In an interview not long after the Texas case was decided, Justice Ginsburg said it would endure. “I don’t expect that we’re going to see another affirmative action case,” Justice Ginsburg said, “at least in education.” Six years later, only two members of the majority in the Texas case remain on the court. Justice Kennedy retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Justice Ginsburg died in 2020 and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. After a long blockade of President Barack Obama’s nominee by Senate Republicans, Justice Scalia was replaced by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. All three of the new justices were appointed by President Donald J. Trump. The Texas decision essentially reaffirmed Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 decision in which the Supreme Court endorsed holistic admissions programs, saying it was permissible to consider race as one factor among many to achieve educational diversity. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she expected that “25 years from now,” the “use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” The court is now poised to act well before Justice O’Connor’s deadline. Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court The Supreme Court Tactic That Aims to Kill Affirmative Action Nov. 11, 2021 University of North Carolina Can Keep Affirmative Action, Judge Rules Oct. 18, 2021 As Harvard Case Looms at Supreme Court, Study Tests Value of Diversity May 31, 2021 Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. @adamliptak • Facebook Anemona Hartocollis is a national correspondent, covering higher education. She is also the author of the book, “Seven Days of Possibilities: One Teacher, 24 Kids, and the Music That Changed Their Lives Forever.” @anemonanyc
Contact: Nicole Rosen 202-309-5724 Brandeis Center Commends U.S. Supreme Court for Agreeing to Decide Whether Harvard and UNC Admissions Policies Discriminate Washington, D.C., January 24, 2022: The Brandeis Center applauds the Supreme Court for this morning’s announcement that it would grant cert, as the Center had urged, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, as well as a similar North Carolina case, involving allegations that Harvard and UNC’s admissions policies discriminate against Asian-American and white applicants. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Students for Fair Admissions’ (SFFA) petition for certiorari in this case. Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus, the immediate past Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, commented, “The Harvard and North Carolina cases are likely to be the most important affirmative action cases of this generation. The Court needs to understand that the same discriminatory practices and policies that targeted Jewish applicants remain in full force, only now targeting Asian Americans. Just as Jews were routinely excluded from Harvard’s admissions for lacking acceptable ‘character and fitness,’ today Asian candidates are rejected based on the basis of offensive racial stereotypes about ‘leadership,’ ‘likeability,’ and ‘self-confidence.’” SFFA filed the underlying lawsuit on behalf of Asian American students to challenge Harvard’s admissions system, which they contend imposes higher standards on Asian American applicants on the basis of their race in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Brandeis Center had advised the Court to hear this case, filing a joint brief with the Silicon Valley Chinese Association which demonstrated that Harvard’s admissions plan was developed with the intent of limiting enrollment of Jewish undergraduate students and that it has had the continuing effect of excluding Asian Americans. The LDB-SVCAF brief contains historical information concerning profound anti-Jewish attitudes at early twentieth-century Harvard, which have continued to shape key components of American higher education admissions at selective institutions. The LDB-SVCAF brief argues that Harvard developed much of its long-standing admissions program over a century ago with the specific purpose of limiting the enrollment of Jewish students, and that same plan has the continuing effect, to this day, of limiting Asian American enrollment. LDB and SVCAF have argued that Harvard is discriminating against Asian American applicants today using the same methods the school devised and used to discriminate against Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s: reducing the percentage of Asian American applicants “based on subjective factors that are examined through the lens of prejudicial assumptions and stereotypes,” as the brief explains. In 1920, Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell began a process of intentionally altering the admissions selectivity system to address what Lowell termed the “Jew problem” at Harvard—which consisted of Jewish students reaching more than twenty percent of the population of admitted classes. Concerned that the increasing Jewish population on campus would deter wealthy Protestants from attending Harvard over comparable institutions, Harvard implemented a de facto quota on Jewish enrollment. But “[r]ather than announce an explicit quota on the admission of Jews to reduce Jewish enrollment,” President Lowell devised a plan whereby Harvard could instead “decline admission to a certain number of Jewish applicants who possessed the stereotypical characteristics of Jews.” Harvard did this by utilizing subjective admissions criteria so that only applicants who passed a “character and fitness” analysis were admitted—Jews were routinely deemed to lack the necessary qualities. Thus, as the brief explains, the subjective criterion of “character and fitness” was used “as a pretext for excluding applicants with stereotypical characteristics of Jews.” For decades, Harvard successfully implemented this method to reduce the percentage of Jews in each freshman class to fifteen percent. As the brief contends: “Just as Harvard used methods in the 1920s and 1930s to identify applicants of sufficient ‘character and fitness’ as a pretext to discriminate against Jews, Harvard’s current use of the ‘personal rating’ to pursue student-body diversity is a pretext to discriminate against Asian Americans.” A hundred years later, Harvard continues to utilize the same discriminatory admissions policies that it devised to clandestinely limit Jewish enrollment to now limit the enrollment of Asian Americans. As LDB and SVCAF state in our brief: “Different time period. Different ethnic/racial group. Same discrimination. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.” Jonathan Vogel of Vogel LLC, who served as the Deputy General Counsel for Higher Education and Regulatory Services in the U.S. Department of Education, drafted the brief on behalf of SVCAF, a nonprofit that promotes the integration of Chinese communities in Silicon Valley and its neighboring areas, and LDB. About The Louis D. Brandeis Center: The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc., or LDB, is an independent, nonprofit organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. The Brandeis Center conducts research, education, and advocacy to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on college and university campuses. It is not affiliated with the Massachusetts university, the Kentucky law school, or any of the other institutions that share the name and honor the memory of the late U.S. Supreme Court justice.
The Times of Israel Less than two months after Zahra Billoo, a longtime leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), lambasted Jewish houses of worship before a packed room at the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) convention in Chicago, a Texas synagogue was targeted by an Islamist hostage-taker. On November 27, 2021, Billoo warned 3,000 AMP conference-goers to be wary of “polite Zionists,” those Jewish individuals or organizations who seek peace and understanding between Jews and Muslims in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Billoo went on to slander mainstream Jewish organizations including “Zionist synagogues,” Jewish Federations, the Anti-Defamation League, and Hillel chapters on campuses, referring to them as the Islamophobic enemy. “I’m not going to sugar-coat that,” she said, “they are your enemies. Make no mistake of it. They would sell you down the line if they could.” Amid rising antisemitism in the United States, remarks such as these send chills down the spines of Jewish people who feel increasingly vulnerable and marginalized as an age-old hatred rears its ugly head. All the more so because these vicious comments were made by a self-described civil rights activist to raucous applause in a major American city. Billoo’s opprobrium for campus-based Hillel organizations is particularly deceptive and distasteful. At colleges and universities from coast to coast, Hillel leads the way in fostering nuanced, informed, and respectful dialogue across political, ideological, and cultural boundaries. But, speaking of her so-called “polite Zionists,” who favor a negotiated two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, Billoo forcefully discouraged the audience from breaking bread with anyone who believes in Israel’s right to exist. “They are the same ones who want to ban Muslims,” she averred. Billoo is no stranger to controversy. For years, she has railed against Israel and Jews, celebrating Hamas’ firing of rockets at innocent Israeli civilians and calling those who support Israel proponents of “baby killers.” In 2019, Billoo was removed from the board of the Women’s March for “public statements incompatible with the values and mission of the organization.” What might be most disturbing is that CAIR defends Billoo’s remarks and continues to promote her, providing a national platform. It is a shame to see CAIR’s commitment to fighting Islamophobia and right-wing fascism so soiled by concurrent expressions of antisemitism. Billoo’s coded language–replacing the word “Jew” with “Zionist”– is no excuse. Indeed, Zionism is as integral to Judaism as observing the Sabbath or keeping kosher. To quote Alyza D. Lewin, President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, “Zionism as a political movement of the Jewish people may have originated in the 19th century, but the desire and determination of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland in Israel is thousands of years old, as old as Abraham, Moses, and the enslaved Jewish people’s exodus from Egypt to the Promised Land.” Yes, for the vast majority of American Jews, Zionism is a deeply held and deeply felt component of their Jewish identity. CAIR and AMP’s campaign to separate Zionism from Judaism is a cynical crusade built on a house of cards. The path to peace is paved with diplomacy and dialogue, not boycotts and anti-normalization. Each of us has to decide whether we will be part of the problem or part of the solution. If we are going to be part of the solution, we have to bring together people of different backgrounds and faiths. We have to encourage meaningful dialogue. We have to talk about two states for two peoples. We have to empower people to take tangible steps to promote coexistence. Being part of the solution means we can acknowledge Israel’s imperfections, and we are happy to have that conversation. But Billoo’s speech shows how Israel’s detractors, from CAIR to AMP to the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) groups on campus, refuse to be part of the solution. Instead, they are part of the problem. They reject dialogue with pro-Israel students. They are vehemently opposed to the very idea of a Jewish state. If these groups had their way, millions of Jewish, Arab, and Christian Israelis would either have to flee or live under tyranny. To be part of the solution, you have to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. If you can’t accept that, you are part of the problem. As Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres said recently, “When you use inflammatory language such as apartheid or ethnic cleansing or genocide, you’re not promoting peace. You’re inciting hatred, and you’re not part of the solution. You’re part of the problem.” AMP and SJP share an Illinois-based corporation called Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation. If they truly want justice for the Palestinian people, they will stop fueling ethnic strife and instead embrace the concept of constructive dialogue. This is the only path that will result in real reconciliation. It’s time to leave the old divisive rhetoric behind before more “Zionist synagogues” and other Jewish spaces are targeted. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jacob Baime is CEO of Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), which unites and empowers pro-Israel campus organizations, providing strategic coordination and expertise to strengthen support for Israel.
Watch the Webinar Here! Antisemitism on Campus: What You Need to Know January 20, 2022, 7 pm ET Incidents of antisemitism at our nation’s colleges are disturbingly on the rise. What can be done to protect our youth? Hadassah Magazine Executive Editor Lisa Hostein moderates an informative panel with attorney Alyza Lewin, a leading figure in the legal fight against campusantisemitism, and prominent student activists who are taking concrete action. Register Here! “The legal strategy employed by the Brandeis Center is relatively new in the evolving toolkit of fighting campus antisemitism, alongside several proactive initiatives begun in the past year and a half.” To read more about the Brandeis Center see the Hadassah Magazine cover story, Battling Antisemitism on Campus. Read the Magazine article here
Independent ‘The FBI got it wrong’: Jewish leaders criticise law enforcement statement on synagogue siege Failure to understand antisemitism ‘is something of a pattern with law enforcement in the United States’, Jewish civil rights leader says Bevan Hurley Joe Biden says Texas synagogue attack was ‘an act of terror’ Jewish leaders have condemned the FBI for claiming the Texas synagogue hostage taker’s demands were not “specifically focused” on their community. Suspect Malik Faisal Akram was killed during a rescue operation to save a rabbi and three worshippers who were held at gunpoint at the Congregation Beth Israel for nearly 12 hours on Saturday. Akram, a British national, reportedly demanded the release of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist who was convicted in the US in 2010 and sentenced to 86 years in prison for trying to kill an American army captain in Afghanistan. At a news conference after the hostages were released, FBI Special Agent in Charge Matt DeSarno said “the Texas synagogue hostage taker’s demands were specifically focused on issues not connected to the Jewish community”. Kenneth Marcus, a former assistant US secretary of eduction for civil rights, said the attack on the synagogue in Colleyville, near Fort Worth, was “obviously a matter of antisemitism”. “The FBI got it wrong,” Mr Marcus, who is also the founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told Fox News. “Failure of the FBI to understand this is something of a pattern with law enforcement in the United States and frankly in Europe,” Mr Marcus added. Follow live updates on the Texas synagogue siege Roz Rothstein, CEO of StandWithUs, a non-partisan organisation that educates people about antisemitism, said the FBI comments “dangerously downplayed” what was an obvious attack on Jewish people. “Trying to separate Jews from the idea that Jews were targeted on their holy day at their house of worship, is a mistake and it is insulting and disappointing,” Ms Rothstein told Fox News. “It makes no sense to try and separate Saturday’s hostage crisis from the people who suffered and who were the most impacted: Jews, their Jewish families and the Jewish world,” she added. Ms Rothstein said the FBI agent may have misspoke because antisemitic acts are often allowed to pass without being properly identified or condemned, either “intentionally or out of ignorance”. Their comments echoed an outpouring of anger from US politicians and commentators over the remarks. Late on Sunday, the FBI clarified its initial statement by stating that the siege was a “terrorism-related matter, in which the Jewish community was targeted”. “We never lose sight of the threat extremists pose to the Jewish community and to other religious, racial, and ethnic groups. We have had a close and enduring relationship with the Jewish community for many years,” the statement said. “We continue to work tirelessly with the Secure Community Network, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federation, and others to protect members of the Jewish community from all potential threats.”