Skip to main content

Newsweek

Saturday’s Congregation Beth Israel kidnapping in Colleyville, Texas, holds important lessons for federal policymakers. Yet based on early reports, it appears that these lessons are falling on deaf ears, as federal authorities misconstrue what happened in Texas, just as they so often do.

As we now know, Malik Faisal Akram, 44, allegedly held four persons hostage in order to demand freedom for imprisoned terrorist Aafia Siddiqui. Siddiqui was convicted in 2010 of attempting to kill U.S. officers in Afghanistan and is serving an 86-year sentence at a federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas. But public comments suggest that even the Federal Bureau of Investigation has failed to understand that antisemitic character of this event, which will undoubtedly hamper corrective action.

The first lesson is that law enforcement often have difficulty recognizing antisemitism, even when it stares them in the face. To be clear, we should recognize the good work of those who flew to Texas to put themselves in harm’s way and eventually rescued all the hostages without physical injury. Nevertheless, Matthew DeSarno, special agent in charge of the FBI‘s Dallas office, reportedly stated that “We do believe from our engagement with this subject that he was singularly focused on one issue, and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community.”

Jewish leaders have understandably decried this failure to understand that the core of this crime is antisemitism. It should be obvious that this crime was centrally connected to the Jewish community. The attack, like the 2019 shooting in Poway, California, and the 2018 Squirrel Hill mass-murder at Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill, took place at a synagogue. The victims were a rabbi and his congregants. The perpetrator’s cause was to release Siddiqui, an infamous anti-Semite who dismissed her legal defense team because her lawyers were Jewish and who wanted jurors to take DNA tests to make sure they were not Zionists.

In a sense, the FBI’s mis-step feels like déjà vu. Governmental officials routinely fail to recognize antisemitism even when it stares them in the face. In one famous example, French law enforcement officials arguably botched their investigation of the 2006 Paris kidnapping of Ilan Halimi, due to their initial failure to recognize the perpetrators’ antisemitic motivation until it was too late to prevent his murder. In another, the Obama administration infamously failed to recognize the obvious antisemitic motivation for the mass-shooting at a kosher deli, also in France, until reporters explained the obvious connection to White House staffers.

A Colleyville Police vehicle in the street.
A Colleyville Police vehicle parked in Good Shepherd Catholic Community church on January 15, 2022 in Colleyville, Texas. British authorities have confirmed to Newsweek that the suspect shot at the scene was a U.K. citizen.EMIL LIPPE/GETTY IMAGES

FBI officials were apparently confused because Siddiqui was incarcerated for crimes that appear unrelated to Jews or Israel. Moreover, this does not appear to be one of the many situations in which Jews are held collectively responsible for supposed actions of the State of Israel, such as widespread attacks on Jewish Americans attacked last May in the wake of Israel’s conflict with Hamas.

Rather, Akram’s alleged attack on Jews is consistent with a widespread anti-Zionist conspiracy theory in which Zionist Jews are accused of orchestrating many of the world’s evils, whether they relate to Israel or not.

Siddiqui herself held such beliefs deeply. “Study the history of the Jews,” she once said. “They have always back-stabbed everyone who has taken pity on them and made the ‘fatal’ error of giving them shelter.”

This toxic ideology must be understood not as an opposition to the political ideology of Zionism but rather as an evolution of age-old antisemitic ideology.

To his credit, President Joe Biden has acknowledged the antisemitic aspect of this crime. “et me be clear to anyone who intends to spread hate,” he said this weekend. “We will stand against antisemitism and against the rise of extremism in this country.” It is imperative that governmental responses to the Colleyville hostage-taking proceed from this basis, rather than from the FBI’s initial conclusion.

The second lesson is that words have consequences. Those who see Colleyville for what it is will understand that it developed out of a particular context. Just last month, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, came out in support of its San Francisco executive-director, Zahra Billoo, when she said that Zionist synagogues are “enemies” who are part of a conspiracy behind Islamaphobia. We should not assume that Akram was specifically aware of Billoo’s widely-disseminated remarks. Such ideas are, however, sadly widespread in both North America and Europe, and are shaping the climate of opinion on significant swaths of the internet as well as on many university campuses.

To its credit, CAIR quickly condemned the hostage-taking, writing on multiple platforms that “no cause can justify or excuse this crime.” This belated statement is welcome, but will deserve applause only if it provokes such organizations to carefully assess the extent to which they have poisoned public discourse with anti-Zionism. In higher education, where anti-Zionist ideology is rampant, students, faculty, and administrators should also carefully assess whether they too are contributing to a lethal environment.

The third lesson of Colleyville is that the current surge in antisemitism requires urgent attention. Last year, the European Commission wisely established a strategic plan for addressing antisemitism. The Biden administration should quickly do the same. The plan should include better training for law enforcement, security for religious institutions, a White House antisemitism coordinator, and clarity on definitions. On the question of definitions, the administration could take a lesson from Virginia’s new governor, Glenn Youngkin, who on his first day in office, which coincided with the Colleyville attack, issued an executive order which wisely incorporates the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism.

This work should be undertaken quickly. The Texas attack underscores a problem that has increasingly reached across our country. According to an American Jewish Community survey, for example, one in four Jewish Americans experience antisemitism last year.

The Biden White House did not send the right message, to say the least, when it announced last month that it was delaying and downgrading rule-making on combating antisemitism to a “long-term action.” The government’s response to antisemitism, and other forms of hate, must be conducted with urgency.

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.

The views in this article are the writer’s own.

Join the AAJLJ on Tuesday, January 25th at 7 p.m. ET for a Special Program for Holocaust Remembrance Day

77 years after the Holocaust: Roadblocks to Restitution and a Path Forward

Featuring Donald Burris, Eli Rosenbaum, and Arthur Traldi

Moderated by Alyssa Grzesh

RSVP to saleckson@aol.com
(Zoom link will be sent before the presentation)

In the wake of the Holocaust, most of the world could not possibly conceive of what “justice” might look like. How can there be justice for the six million Jews who were murdered? What is justice for the one and a half million slain Jewish children, who never experienced adulthood? How can there be justice when we think of, not only all of the artwork and cultural artifacts that were stolen, but also of the scientific discoveries, the symphonies, the works of art, the beautiful books that never became real because of the death camps?

Donald Burris, Eli Rosenbaum, and Arthur Traldi are but a few of the incredible lawyers who have searched for a measure of justice for the victims and heirs of victims of the Holocaust. Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. Burris have devoted their lives to, respectively, finding and prosecuting Nazi war criminals and recovering Nazi-looted art.  Mr. Traldi served as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, litigating cases involving charges of genocide, and now is working at the Brandeis Center to combat anti-Semitism and ensure that “Never Again” is a promise that remains fulfilled.  Join us at the AAJLJ to discuss their work and numerous accomplishments, the obstacles they have encountered along the way, and how they think we can pave a path forward to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.


Donald Burris:

Mr. Burris, the senior founding partner in the firm of Burris & Schoenberg, LLP, has been actively involved in a sophisticated national and international business litigation and business law practice for almost fifty (50) years. Mr. Burris is an honors graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, where he finished at the top of his class and served as Editor-in-Chief of Volume 57 of the Georgetown Law Journal. After a judicial clerkship with Circuit Judge James R.L Browning, Jr of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he was initially based in Washington, D.C. and he has maintained his principal office in Los Angeles and resided in Santa Monica since 1976.  He is admitted to practice in California, the District of Columbia, other federal jurisdictions and the State of Maryland and is a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court.

In the course of representing his broad client base Mr. Burris has been called upon to perform diverse tasks including overseeing litigation as a lead or local counsel, providing “consigliore”- type services to clients contemplating or already involved in litigation, drafting legal opinions as to proposed corporate actions and supervising the actual acquisitions or sales of businesses involving a number of industries. He has also served with distinction on a number of Boards of Directors for public and private companies as well as for non-profit entities such as the Friends of the Brentwood Art Center (which he helped found), the newly-formed Institute for the development of Preservation of Culture and World-wide Sustainability”, and Global Green, a California-based entity also dedicated to developing economic self-sufficiency throughout the United States and the world. He also proudly served with distinction under the tutelage of Senator Samuel Ervin and Professor Samuel Dash as an Assistant Counsel to the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee in the 1970’s and has been designated as an expert witness in a number of cases relating to multiple aspects of litigation and legal ethics.

Since the late 1980’s, when they formed their law partnership, Mr. Burris has worked with his close friend and colleague, E. Randol Schoenberg, in the successful pursuit of a number of valuable art works and other assets stolen by the Nazi authorities before and during World War II.  The culmination of these efforts was the landmark case of Altmann v. Republic of Austria 541 U.S. 677 (2004), at the conclusion of which the Austrian Government was ordered to, and did, return to the firm’s client’s possession five (5) priceless historic paintings by Gustav Klimt. Mr. Burris has authored three (3) well-received law review articles directly pertaining to his work in this field, with the most recent article presenting a comprehensive review of his experiences working with Jewish families to retrieve Nazi-looted art. At this stage of his career, he is recognized as one of a relatively small group of lawyers-legal scholars in this field.

 

Eli Rosenbaum:

Eli Rosenbaum is the longest-serving prosecutor and investigator of Nazi criminals and other perpetrators of human rights violations in world history, having worked on these cases at the U.S. Department of Justice for more than 35 years. He holds undergraduate and MBA degrees in finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he also taught finance, and a law degree from the Harvard Law School.  Currently serving as Director of Human Rights Enforcement Strategy and Policy in the Justice Department Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, he works on matters involving individual and corporate responsibility for human rights violations.

Rosenbaum is best known for having been in charge of the Justice Department’s efforts in the Nazi cases, rising from trial attorney in the Criminal Division’s “Nazi-hunting” Office of Special Investigations (OSI) to ultimately serving as OSI’s Director for more than 15 years.  Under Rosenbaum’s leadership of the former OSI, the U.S. Justice Department program won more World War II Nazi cases than did the law enforcement authorities of all the other countries of the world combined, including a victory that culminated in the deportation to Germany of a former Nazi concentration camp guard just last year.  He also directed the Justice Department’s successful efforts to trace the fate of gold, artwork and other assets looted by the Nazis and its leading role in the interagency effort that resulted in the discovery, declassification, and release over 8 million pages of classified documents in U.S. Government files pertaining to WWII Nazi and Japanese criminals and their crimes.  It is the only program of its kind to have won awards from Holocaust survivor groups and Jewish organizations, and last year it won the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s highest honor, the Elie Wiesel Award, which Rosenbaum accepted on behalf of his agency.

Between his two tenures at DOJ, Rosenbaum served as a corporate litigator at the law firm of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in Manhattan and then as General Counsel of the World Jewish Congress (WJC).  At the WJC, he directed the WJC investigation that resulted in the worldwide exposure of the hidden Nazi past of former United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim – an exposure that was the subject of his 1993 book Betrayal: The Untold Story of the Kurt Waldheim Investigation and Cover-Up, which was selected by The San Francisco Chronicle for “Best Books of 1993” and by The New York Times for “Notable Books of 1993.”   His numerous awards include the Justice Department Criminal Division’s highest award for career service (2020), the Anti-Defamation League’s “Heroes in Blue” award, the Assistant Attorney General’s Award for Human Rights Law Enforcement, the Joseph Wharton Award of the Wharton Club of Washington, DC, and the Honorary Fellowship Award of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, presented annually to one attorney “who has distinguished himself or herself in commitment to public service” by “ma[king] significant contributions to the ends of justice at the cost of great personal risk and sacrifice.” An NBC Nightly News profile of Rosenbaum is viewable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qraAA8qUf5o.


Arthur Traldi:

Arthur is an international lawyer with more than a decade of experience litigating cases involving allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the law of armed conflict.  He presently serves as a Senior Counsel at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law, senior consultant with Lexpat Global Services, and senior fellow with the Technology, Law, and Security Program at American University’s Washington College of Law.

From 2010 to 2017, Arthur served as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).  Arthur has also served on teams making submissions to the International Criminal Court, United States Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, and other courts in the U.S. and abroad.  Before joining ICTY, he served in Chambers at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and clerked for Justice Debra Todd and Judge Arthur L. Zulick in Pennsylvania.

Arthur regularly gives talks, leads trainings, and publishes on issues in international humanitarian law and international human rights law. He has worked with AAJLJ on amicus briefs on atrocity crime cases, including two Supreme Court cases on Holocaust restitution.

Arthur received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his undergraduate degree from the College of William and Mary.  He is certified to practice law before the state courts of Pennsylvania, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and the United States Supreme Court.  He is co-chair of the American Bar Association’s International Criminal Law Committee, an expert panelist with TrialWatch, and a member of the American Bar Association’s International Criminal Justice Standards Advisory Group.


Alyssa Grzesh:

Alyssa Grzesh is a New York-based commercial litigator with Adam Michael Levy, P.C. She previously served as executive director of the AAJLJ, with whom she worked on an amicus brief on behalf of Jewish organizations and allies, as amici curiae, in support of a petition for cert in Weiss et al., v. National Westminster Bank PLC.  She published an article on the case in the 2021 issue of the NYLitigator, the publication of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association.

She recently worked with the AAJLJ and a team of lawyers on amici briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Holocaust restitution plaintiffs. Alyssa also serves as the VP-Finance treasurer of the Jewish Lawyers Guild, and on the 2022 Civil Court Independent Screening Panel.  Alyssa received her J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Wellesley College.

 

Please contact Alyssa Grzesh, agrzesh@gmail.com, with any questions.

Algemeiner

~ By Dion J. Pierre | January 13, 2022 @ 4:44 pm ~

A commissioner for the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) this week addressed allegations that Stanford University’s diversity and inclusion trainings fostered a hostile work environment for Jews, calling them “troubling.”

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights filed a complaint in June with the EEOC, alleging in part that Stanford’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programming promoted tropes of Jewish power and forced two Jewish clinicians to join segregated discussion groups for white participants.

Addressing the controversy during a virtual panel on antisemitism in the workplace on Monday, EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas cued up a slide showing newspaper headlines about antisemitic incidents in various sectors of the workforce, saying, “The reporting has been nationwide on some of these issues, from the Wall Street Journal to The New York Times and a variety of other papers and newspapers.”

These incidents “include the referenced allegations, and deeply troubling ones, that the Brandeis Center has brought to light about Stanford’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program, which got coverage all the way up to The New York Times in opinion pieces on that situation, allegedly involving segregating Jewish employees in white affirming and white passing affinity groups, separated out from other individuals of color, dismissing allegations of Zoom bombings with swastikas, out of concern that it would draw attention away from anti-Black anti-racism concerns.”

Lucas urged employers to prioritize “antisemitism in your anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, and diversity trainings.”

“On the flip side, in addition to explicitly condemning antisemitism in DEI-related and anti-harassment related policies, you should carefully audit those policies,” she continued. “Make sure that the policies and trainings that are meant to encourage diversity and inclusion are actually inclusive for everyone and don’t end up inadvertently or perhaps ill-advisedly contributing to antisemitism in ways that can include assumptions and stereotypes about power or privilege.”

Kenneth Marcus, founder of the Brandeis Center and former head of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, touched on employment antisemitism issues in the same panel, saying, “disturbingly, some of the bias and hate incidents are appearing in the very the institutions that are intended to address hate and bias, that is to say, the [DEI] programs that are now mushrooming throughout higher education and throughout the workplace as a whole.”

A Jewish former employee of Stanford University, whose experiences were cited in the Brandeis Center’s complaint with the EEOC, told The Algemeiner last June that she “was placed in [a] white affinity group based on the idea that I can hide behind my white identity.” The incident, she said, “disturbed” her. “Not only did that feel like a betrayal to my heritage but to my parents,” she said.

Discussing similar complaints, Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin told The Algemeiner at the time that such demands of Jewish employees are “overly simplistic, and what I call a caricature of Jewish identity, which unfortunately, overlaps with antisemitic Jewish stereotypes.”

“Jewish identity is much more complex, rich, and nuanced,” she explained. “Part of that is that Jews have historically also suffered discrimination and oppression.”

A Stanford University spokesperson told The Algemeiner on Wednesday that an investigation into the allegations that spurred the Brandeis Center’s EEOC complaint yielded “no evidence of discrimination.”

“The investigator concluded that certain conduct made by individuals during a small number of sessions were in violation of Stanford’s Code of Conduct and policy prohibiting harassment,” she said. “While Stanford strongly believes that the exhibited behavior is not in violation of any legal standard, the investigator concluded that it was prohibited under Stanford’s applicable policies.”

“This lower threshold allows the university to intervene and address matters before they rise to the level of a legal violation and contributes to a better workplace,” the spokesperson added.

On Thursday, Lewin called on the university to take steps to prevent future harassment of Jewish employees, such as reforms to include Jewish identity and antisemitism in the university’s centralized DEI program

“Stanford can say it is committed to nurturing a diverse and inclusive work environment and that it rejects antisemitism, however actions speak louder than words,” she told The Algemeiner. “Barring serious corrective action, Stanford’s DEI programs risk continuing to foster a hostile and unwelcoming environment for Jews, and completely undermining the purpose for which Stanford’s DEI program was developed.”

Editor’s note: this article was updated with comments from Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin

Image from Alamy

When Max Price entered Tufts University in 2018, excited to study international relations and economics, he did not expect that his college experience would include being intimidated, harassed and marginalized on the Medford, Mass., campus. In his years at the university, he has been slandered in the school newspaper, muted on a Zoom student government meeting and labeled “a white supremacist upholding settler colonialism” on social media—all on the basis of his Jewish identity and outspoken support of the State of Israel. Last winter, the campaign against him initiated by Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) escalated into an attempt to impeach and remove him from the student government.

Price filed repeated complaints to the university administration with over 100 examples of documented evidence, but his efforts fell on deaf ears. Ultimately, he found a champion in attorney Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a 10-year-old Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that today primarily works to combat the surge of antisemitism on college campuses.

’We need universities to stand up for Jewish students,’ says Max Price.

“Tufts University is legally obligated to protect Mr. Price from antisemitic harassment that targets him because of his Zionist identity and seeks to silence him,” stated a letter to the university administration demanding the impeachment process be stopped. Submitted by Lewin on February 3, 2021, on Price’s behalf, the letter, totaling 110 pages, with exhibits, invoked violations of the university’s own policy regarding freedom of speech as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which precludes discrimination on the grounds of race, color or national origin. In recent years, Title VI has been interpreted to include discrimination against religion on the basis of shared ethnicity and ancestry.

Tufts SJP dropped the impeachment effort three weeks after the letter was sent, claiming that once the situation became public, its members no longer felt safe.“I decided with the Brandeis Center that the best way to stop the harassment was to put a spotlight to it,” said Price, now 22, who grew up in a Conservative Jewish home in Boston and has visited Israel twice. “I never thought of hiding my Jewish identity. I’m proud I fought and stood by my convictions.”

He doesn’t fault his peers who are more reluctant to speak up. “It’s not an expectation we as a society can place on every Jewish student to be a warrior, nor should it be incumbent on American Jewry to push universities to protect our civil rights,” he said. “We need universities to stand up for Jewish students.”

Price’s experience is one example of the antisemitism pervading universities across the country. 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.

At the heart of the disturbing climate on campus is the very definition of antisemitism and how it intersects with anti-Zionism, fueled by the hate that spreads rapidly on social media as well as in-person incidents. The overlapping intersectionality, diversity and inclusion movements are also sweeping anti-Israel sentiment into their causes.

Though antisemitism on campuses continues to come from right-wing groups in the form of swastikas and defacing of Jewish spaces, said Lewin, much of it emerges as a form of left-wing progressive activism.

Julia Jassey, 20, a University of Chicago student who has become a leading national figure in the fight against anti-Jewish activity on campus, put it this way: “Antisemitism is, by nature, a nebulous form of hate which is able to continue over time because it shifts in presentation.

“Today’s rhetoric around Israel and accusations of ‘Jewish greed’ have been reimagined within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in ways that transcend politics and are, undeniably, antisemitic,” continued Jassey, the CEO and co-founder of Jewish on Campus, a nonprofit started by six students last year as an Instagram page that has collected more than 1,000 anonymous stories of antisemitism and now has over 34,000 followers.

“These tropes have existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years,” she added, “but these permutations are markedly modern.”

Jassey, who grew up in a Conservative Jewish home in Dix Hills, N.Y., noted that one of the biggest challenges for the Jewish community is rethinking how it reacts to this type of antisemitism. “What has worked for the last 20 years is not working now,” she said. “It needs to be re-envisioned because antisemitism looks different now.” In her view, the change needs to include strong student voices fighting antisemitism on campuses and in social media spaces, backed by established organizations.

Recent numbers reveal the scope of the problem. Last April, a Brandeis Center-commissioned poll of 1,000 members of the predominantly Jewish fraternity and sorority Alpha Epsilon Pi and Phi reported that two-thirds of respondents experienced or were familiar with an antisemitic attack—either verbal or physical threats and assaults, on campus or in virtual settings—over the previous four months. More than 65 percent of those surveyed in that poll by the Cohen Research Group said they felt unsafe on campus due to physical or verbal attacks, and half felt the need to hide their Jewish identities.

In a recent attack, for example, vandals broke into Tau Kappa Epsilon, a largely Jewish fraternity, at George Washington University on November 1, tore apart its Torah scroll and covered it in laundry detergent. The rest of the house was doused with hot sauce.

Jewish students who are not actively engaged in Jewish and pro-Israel groups may never experience antisemitism, Lewin pointed out. But even those less active have told Lewin they will no longer hang a mezuzah or wear jewelry with Jewish symbols or T-shirts with Hebrew words because they are targeted when they do. “This is the kind of pressure students are feeling,” she said.Hillel International, which has chapters on 500 campuses globally, counted 244 incidents in the United States, including attacks on social media, during the 2020-2021 academic year, even though many campuses were physically closed due to the pandemic for most of that time. This marked a 34 percent increase from the year before. In 2013, only 30 incidents were reported. Its new collaborative initiative with the Anti-Defamation League to address this rise in antisemitism included a survey of students on 220 campuses last summer: A third said they had experienced anti-Jewish hate in the past year, but most did not report it. The 40 percent who did report it said they were not taken seriously by their school administrations.

“Not every campus is burning, but it’s very challenging to imagine that students don’t encounter some form of hatred during their university life—whether in person, in the classroom, on the campus quad or on social media platforms,” said Rachel Fish, an historian of Israel, Zionism and Middle Eastern studies based in Waltham, Mass.

The majority decide not to engage or report their experiences because they came to school to study and have fun, said Fish, whose new think tank, Boundless Israel, partners with community leaders to revitalize Israel education and combat Jew hatred. They don’t want to lose friends, alienate professors or be “canceled” for taking an unpopular stance.

Meanwhile, the complex interface between antisemitism and anti-Zionism has not been adequately recognized by both the Jewish and university communities, said Lewin. “Anti-Zionism is not about criticizing Israel’s policies. It denies Israel’s right to exist—and that’s antisemitism,” she said.

Pro-Israel advocates in Manhattan. Photo from Sipa USA via AP.

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, has a slightly different take. He said that while not all anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitism, anti-Zionism is antisemitic when either in intent or effect “it invokes anti-Jewish tropes; when it is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel; when it equates Zionism with Nazism and other genocidal regimes; or when it renders Jews less worthy of sovereignty and nationhood than other peoples and states.”

Antisemitism from the right continues to pose a “serious and dangerous threat,” Greenblatt said, referring to both college campuses and American society in general, likening it to “the lethal category-5 hurricane threatening to bring immediate catastrophe. Antisemitism on the left, however, is more insidious, akin to climate change. Slowly but surely, the temperature is increasing. Often people don’t perceive the shift, or they choose to ignore it even in the face of once uncommon storms. But the metaphorical temperature is rising, and the conditions threaten to upend life as we know it.”

Being pro-Israel is seen as being outside the realm of intersectionality, which merges progressive causes such as anti-racism, LGBTQ+ advocacy, climate change and Indigenous, labor and reproductive rights. “There are those who have highjacked the effort to fight racism and adopted a vision of the world as one of two categories—good and evil, oppressed or oppressor,” said Lewin.

“In the progressive spaces on campus, the litmus test for how progressive one is begins with the question, ‘Does Israel have a right to exist?’ And the answer is no!” agreed Fish. “Israel is perceived as being born in sin, and to be on the ‘correct’ side of history, one must denounce those who engage and support Israel as they are deemed to be racist.”

This dynamic freezes out Jewish students inclined toward progressive values.

“Intersectionality ignores the Jewish voice for progressive causes,” said Blake Flayton, 21, a Manhattan-based columnist for the Jewish Journal in Los Angeles, who graduated last August from George Washington University. Anti-Israel activists reach out to Black student unions and other progressive organizations, intertwining their problems and oppressions. They assert that their strength will grow if they join forces, he explained.

Flayton, who was raised in a Reform Jewish home in Phoenix, Ariz., speaks from personal experience. For his first three semesters at the university, until the pandemic shut down the campus in early 2020, Flayton spent every weekend at rallies for progressive causes—Planned Parenthood, criminal justice reform, a $15 minimum wage. He said he found “overwhelming hostility” to Israel in these spaces both on campus and off.

Blake Flayton addresses the No Fear rally in Washington in July 2021.

Then he saw a video posted to a student’s Snapchat story showing another student advocating the bombing of Israel and then proceeding to spew blatantly antisemitic profanities about Jews. When a close friend at the time posted on his Instagram that Jewish students don’t stand up for anybody else on campus, Flayton had had enough. He described his campus experience in an opinion piece published in The New York Times on November 4, 2019.

“This is our new normal,” he wrote. “On college campuses and in progressive circles across the country, it does not matter if you strongly oppose the right-wing leadership in Israel; if you are a Zionist, you are seen as the enemy…. If you call yourself a Zionist because your family fled to Israel from a Middle Eastern country as a means of survival, you are complicit in ethnic cleansing. If you call yourself a Zionist because your family fled Germany to escape a concentration camp, you are a colonialist. If you call yourself a Zionist because your family made aliyah to Israel because of their religious or spiritual beliefs, you are complicit in apartheid.”

Flayton says that his Zionist identity was dormant until it was threatened. “I had heard that people complained about antisemitism on college campuses, but I never gave it a shred of thought,” he said. “And when I did, I thought those were right-wing Jews who can’t bear criticism of Israel.”

His experience spurred him to co-found the New Zionist Congress, an educational and cultural organization whose name riffs off Theodor Herzl’s 1897 First Zionist Congress. The group, which has a thousand subscribers to its weekly newsletter and 5,000 followers on Instagram, has been providing virtual programming to strengthen the Jewish identity as a defense against antisemitism. It hopes to open in-person chapters soon.

That strategy, he said, “is more effective than any BDS debate on campus, which is just a lot of screaming and calling people names.”

What complicates the issue is that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Zionism, and some Jewish students who support Israel feel that not all anti-Zionism on campus is antisemitic. “Zionism is defined both by the establishment of a Jewish homeland as well as by the displacement of Palestinians from their homes in 1948,” asserted Eliza Schloss, 21, a journalism major at American University in Washington, D.C., who is co-chair of J Street U on her campus and also serves on its regional board. “I wouldn’t be so quick to label those who call Israel a settler colonial state antisemitic.”

Schloss said that “when we loop criticism of Israel into the definition of antisemitism it becomes problematic.” However, she added, “when political criticism morphs into personal attacks labeling Jewish students as guilty for the actions of the Israeli government or military, that’s getting into what I believe is antisemitism.”

Both Flayton and Jassey say their public fight against antisemitism has strengthened their Jewish identities. “Growing up, being Jewish was like playing soccer. I didn’t realize that in college I would be questioned about where my family is from,” said Jassey, whose maternal family fled Iraq and Yemen to find refuge in Israel, where her grandparents were born. Her father is of Russian and Polish heritage. When she faced an antisemitic comment at a campus French club and felt so insecure that she laughed along with it, she began to delve into her family history, which reaches back to Spain.

“I’m alive because of Israel,” said Jassey, adding that she has faced “intense and frighteningly violent threats,” mostly on social media.

“My ancestors fought through so much antisemitism, and I can’t turn my back on that,” said Jassey, a double major in political science and Jewish studies who also hosts the podcast Nice Jewish Girls, in which she interviews Jewish women who are breaking new ground in various fields.

“I realized that I could run away from antisemitism because it’s too complicated to contend with—or that fighting it could be a source of strength.”

The organization she co-founded, Jewish on Campus, announced a collaboration with the World Jewish Congress in October, focusing on education, grassroots activism, social media engagement and advocating for student protection. The partnership is one of several in which mainstream Jewish organizations are teaming up with burgeoning student-run groups and universities to help address the increasingly volatile climate.

Creating a distinction between discrimination and free speech is a vital shift in the way students and campus organizations are now articulating their response to antisemitism. “Discriminating against religious expressions of identity like wearing a kippah or putting up a mezuzah is clearly recognized as unlawful,” said Lewin. Universities are usually quicker to respond with statements of condemnation in such instances, as George Washington officials did in the case of the desecrated Torah scroll in November.

But, according to Lewin, “Discrimination based on a student’s support of Israel is more difficult to uncloak.

“University administrators felt they were under no obligation to intervene in what they perceived as a political debate: one side supports the Palestinians; the other supports Israel,” Lewin continued. The “political debate” masquerades as free speech but in reality is a cover to “spread falsehoods and dispute Israel’s right to exist without any interest in discussion or dialogue,” Lewin said. It seeks to “marginalize, ostracize and ultimately exclude Jewish students who support Israel as a key component of their ethnic pride and identity.”

Attorney Alyza Lewin is holding schools accountable. Photo by Adin Halbfinger.

Lewin’s goal is a sweeping one: Use the law to improve the climate on campuses and allow Jewish students to fully engage in campus life without hiding a part of who they are. “The law is a powerful motivator,” she said. “When you use the language of harassment and discrimination, universities pay attention. If they don’t comply, they have legal liability, and they don’t want to lose their funding.”

No comprehensive list of legal letters or complaints exists, said Lewin. Complaints are only publicized if the complainant chooses to go public, and individuals and other organizations like the Lawfare ProjectStandWithUs, the Zionist Organization of America and CAMERA have also filed complaints separately or jointly with the Brandeis Center.

One case that garnered widespread attention involved Rose Ritch, a student at the University of Southern California who was elected vice president of the Undergraduate Student Government in February 2020. She was demonized publicly and privately on social media, including for her affiliation with the pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. One post accused her of alienating Palestinian students on campus simply because she is a Zionist and urged: “Get rid of her.” A fellow USC student launched an impeachment campaign against her.

The Brandeis Center sent a letter to the USC administration on July 7, 2020, invoking Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the university’s own bylaws, asking the university to protect Ritch from antisemitic harassment and immediately halt impeachment proceedings that are “unquestionably and deeply rooted in Jew hatred and unlawfully deny her an equal opportunity to participate in USC campus life.”

Although the university suspended the impeachment proceedings, Ritch still resigned from the student body on August 5, 2020. It was “the only sustainable choice I could make to protect both my physical safety and mental health,” she wrote in a Newsweek opinion piece. The next day, USC President Carol Folt sent a message to the USC community citing Ritch’s “heartbreaking resignation letter” and stating that “anti-Semitism in all of its forms is a profound betrayal of our principles and has no place at the university.”

The majority of the com-plaints to universities about antisemitism take the form of letters sent to school administrations charging that the university has not taken steps to protect students. Some complaints are filed with the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education. In 2004, following anti-Muslim sentiment in the wake of 9/11, the Department of Education extended protection to “Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and other religious groups” based on their shared ethnicity and ancestry. President Barak Obama’s administration adopted the stance in 2010, and in 2019, President Donald Trump issued an executive order expanding Title VI to all government agencies that disburse funds.

There has been no actual lawsuit since Lawfare settled a case in March 2019 on behalf of students at San Francisco State University and California State University after Hillel was barred from a “Know Your Rights” campus fair in 2017.

Brandeis Center’s letters, Lewin explained, seek not only to redress discrimination against individual students but also to educate administrations and to urge them to take proactive steps: issuing public statements recognizing that Zionism is an integral part of Jewish identity for many; revising their non-discrimination policies to include a prohibition on discrimination based on shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, including antisemitism; conducting trainings for their university communities about the many manifestations of antisemitism; and adopting the non-legally binding International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, which is used by the United States State Department (and has been strongly backed by Hadassah and other Jewish organizations). Contemporary examples that accompany the IHRA definition include “animus toward the Jewish State of Israel that may at times cross the line into antisemitism.”

According to Marc Rotenberg, vice president of University Initiatives and Legal Affairs for Hillel, only a handful of university administrations have formally adopted the IHRA definition, including New York University, Georgia Institute of Technology and Florida State University; 26 student government groups have adopted it.Meanwhile, Lewin pointed out that all universities that receive public funds are subject to the IHRA definition irrespective of formal adoption.

Shine a Light, a new national initiative to raise awareness of antisemitism that is made up of partner organizations, including Hadassah, launched its first campaign during Hanukkah 2021. About a dozen college and university administrations signed on, with many more continuing to join, according to Kate Blumm, a spokeswoman for the initiative. As part of the effort, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine requested that all university and college leadership in Ohio work with local public safety and law enforcement entities to ensure Hanukkah celebrations proceeded safely; find opportunities to speak out against antisemitism; and reach out directly to campus Jewish communities to create a safe environment for students, faculty and staff.

For Max Price, the legal strategy ended a months-long campaign to remove him from the student government. His case dates back to fall 2020, when he was elected to the Tufts Community Union Judiciary, part of the student government that oversees campus groups, Tufts SJP and Tufts for a Racially Equitable Endowment began negotiating on the wording of a referendum they wanted to place on a ballot in support of the Deadly Exchange Campaign.

Deadly Exchange, launched nationally by the far-left Jewish Voice for Peace in 2017, blames Israel for white supremacy, racism and police brutality in the United States based on an exchange program between American and Israeli law enforcement. A Tufts police chief had participated in the exchange program before he retired.

After Price took a stand against the campaign in his capacity as a member of the Tufts Community Union Judiciary and as president of Tufts Friends of Israel, Tufts SJP initiated an intense months-long harassment campaign claiming Price was “inherently biased.” The judiciary chair muted Price on a Zoom meeting, which included the third vote on the resolution in October 2020 (it had been voted down twice), but the harassment did not end: Tufts SJP called for a formal disciplinary hearing.

That is when the Brandeis Center stepped in, sending the letter on Price’s behalf. It also condemned Deadly Exchange, saying that it “promotes a modern blood libel—the demonstrably baseless claim that Jews and Israel are somehow responsible for the tragic deaths of unarmed people of color by American police officers.”

The Tufts administration did not respond directly to the Brandeis letter or intervene in stopping the impeachment trial. “We respect the TCU Senate’s independence regarding the conduct of its business according to its policies and procedures,” Patrick Collins, Tufts’ executive director of media relations, wrote in a statement to Hadassah Magazine, referring to the Tufts Community Union. As to Price’s contention that his initial complaints got no response from university officials, Collins wrote: “We are not at liberty to discuss individual student cases or allegations. However, we take very seriously any concerns raised by students—regardless of their backgrounds and perspectives—of bias, safety, privacy and intimidation, whether by organizations affiliated or unaffiliated with Tufts.”

This past fall, Tufts joined Hillel’s new Campus Climate Initiative, which is currently working with a cohort of 27 university administrations in a yearlong program to better understand the threats of antisemitism, take proactive steps to minimize them and directly counter them when they occur. As part of that effort, Tufts’ administration and trustees convened an Ad Hoc Committee on Antisemitism as well as focus groups. According to Collins, these steps were unrelated to the Brandeis Center letter or Price’s case.

Although the resolution to support Deadly Exchange ultimately passed the student body in December 2020, Price, who is graduating in February, said he is “cautiously optimistic” about the steps Tufts is currently taking to address antisemitism.

“I’m rooting for the administration to do better but I have good reason to be skeptical,” he said. “At the end of the day, it comes down to hard reforms on campus.”

Rahel Musleah leads virtual tours of Jewish India and other cultural events and hopes to lead her first post-Covid in-person tour in November 2022 (explorejewishindia.com).

JNS

 With a general rise in anti-Semitic violence last year, instances of anti-Semitism have also been on the rise in work and education settings, something the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is closely monitoring according to senior commission members who were guests on Monday of a virtual panel discussion held by the Brandeis Center.

EEOC commissioners Andrea Lucas and Keith Sonderling gave a presentation that included statistics on workplace and educational anti-Semitism, as well as the laws that protect workers against acts of anti-Semitism and harassment about their Judaism.

Lucas highlighted some of the statistics, including that one out of four American Jews reports having been a victim of anti-Semitism, according to a study by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), with 39 percent responding that they had to change their behavior to limit activities and conceal their Jewishness.

Another statistic Lucas spoke about was that according to a Brandeis Center study, 65 percent of Jewish students say that they have felt unsafe and 50 percent have hidden their Jewish identity on campus, with one in three Jewish students reporting that they’ve personally experienced anti-Semitism.

“These are horrifying statistics. And even worse, to some degree is that the general public does not seem to be aware of these concerns, or at least at the same level that American Jews do,” said Lucas.

Only 60 percent of the general public viewed anti-Semitism as a problem, as opposed to 90 percent of Jews, and less than 50 percent of non-Jews said that it was growing, according to the AJC survey, compared to 80 percent among American Jews.

Lucas pointed to the number of incidents of workplace anti-Semitism that made the news last year, including anti-Semitic posts by a Google executive; another executive in Utah tying anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to the coronavirus and vaccinations; and a government commerce director in Philadelphia resigning after news broke of him creating a hostile work environment with anti-Semitic remarks spanning many years.

In another instance, an African-American Jewish book-publishing executive posted a statement affirming their organization’s commitment to their Jewish employees but resigned after receiving an outpouring of anti-Semitic criticism.

Lucas said that the EEOC is always monitoring when there is a rise in a particular type of discrimination, and in May, it noticed what she described as a “serious rise” in anti-Semitic violence. The EEOC released a resolution, led by Lucas, to condemn in the strongest possible terms recent violence, harassment and acts of bias against Jews, and express “heartfelt sympathy” and “solidarity with victims and their families, and reaffirm our commitment to combat religious, ethnic and national origin-based harassment and all other forms of unlawful discrimination and to ensure equal opportunity inclusion and dignity for all throughout America’s workplaces.”

“I’m not Jewish myself, but I think it’s important that we all ally ourselves together to say never again, and that includes unequivocally stating that anti-Semitism is unlawful and unacceptable in our workplaces and in our communities,” said Lucas. “And I’m proud to ally with Jewish colleagues like Commissioner Sonderling and others on the commission. I think it’s really meaningful that we had a unanimous resolution denouncing anti-Semitism this year.”

Sonderling, whose presentation focused on the federal laws regarding workplace discrimination, thanked Lucas for her leadership on the resolution, stating that his grandparents lived through the Holocaust.

‘They’re kind of afraid to speak up’

The presentation’s focus was on identifying and combating workplace anti-Semitism from the perspective of employers and employees. After the presentation, Lucas and Sonderling took questions from Brandeis Center president Alyza Lewin and director of legal initiatives Denise Katz-Prober.

Katz-Prober, director of legal initiatives at the Brandeis Center, asked about a new form of anti-Semitism brought about by Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) program trainings at universities and companies, noting that there has been adverse racial stereotyping not only against Jews but other individuals or groups identified or perceived as white.

“We’ve seen is that there are two problematic consequences. The first being that you have discrete targeted acts of discrimination that are directed at a specific individual employee, but then you might also have sort of the creation through these trainings of almost an orthodoxy in the workplace where employees find it to be intimidating,” she said. “They’re kind of afraid to speak up. And they’re afraid that they’re going to appear as though maybe they disagree or don’t accept this orthodoxy.”

She asked what recourse employees have against the toxic cultural environment in the workplace created by such training.

Lucas said that it’s sometimes not well understood that training sessions could lead to a hostile environment, but that employees who perceive this hostile environment should first report it to human resources or management, and later if no action is taken, consider reporting it to the EEOC.

Employees should be comfortable speaking up against it, said Lucas, adding: “If you don’t complain, it can be much harder to protect your rights later.”

The event’s moderator—founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center, as well as former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Kenneth L. Marcus—said that when there is a bias or hate incident, such as on a university campus, the first response from administration is to defer it to the DEI program to do something about it. Sometimes, these programs find the right solution, he said, but not always. Still, there is a growing amount of anecdotal and research evidence in the prevalence of anti-Semitism among those working in DEI programs.

Marcus said this was problematic because the employees of DEI programs are the people professors and students need to go to when a hate crime or anti-Semitism is committed.

“If a university really wants to deal with this problem, what can they do to make sure—not just in training, but in the whole range of activities that DEI does—that they are part of the solution and not part of the problem?” he asked.

‘A good idea to have critical conversations about racism’

In June, the Brandeis Center exposed anti-Semitism within the DEI program of Stanford University in its programming for university employees.

Lucas said that individuals involved in DEI should look inward to determine whether they are focusing too much on the collective.

“Lots of times, the anti-Semitism arises because you are viewing Jews as a collective you are de-individualizing people and that, frankly, is true of a lot of racism and discrimination in general,” she said. “When you engage in any kind of focus of someone on a collective, whoever they are, it can breed problematic conduct, but it can be really stark when we’re talking about anti-Semitism.”

At the same time, when DEI programs focus on power disparities, it is also a traditional avenue for anti-Semitism if the organization does not have a clear stance against anti-Semitism.

She recalled a recent incident at the University of Illinois, where a flier was distributed on campus stating that ending white privilege means ending Jewish privilege and provided data on wealth disparities between white people and other races, and the percentage of Jews.

“These are age-old concerns about and stereotypes about Jews having more power or influence that can turn toxic extremely quickly, just sort of now in a novel context, playing on concepts of critical race theory or systemic racism,” said Lucas. “It’s obviously a good idea to have critical conversations about racism against any number of people in our workplaces. Diversity, equity and inclusion efforts can be tremendously wonderful if done … correctly, but if you were excluding Jews from that conversation, if you’re ignoring the risks towards engaging in anti-Semitic tropes, you can end up hurting the very people who you thought you were helping.”

Lewin said that the point was extremely important because there are Jews who are afraid to push for the inclusion of Jewish identity in these scenarios, as they feel that it means they are not taking seriously the discrimination of other groups and insisting the focus be on the Jewish community.

“I think what you’ve just said is that if you really want to be able to have inclusion, as you said, for all, then you have to include Jewish identity,” said Lewin. “Because otherwise what happens is these programs that are meant to combat and educate about bias and discrimination, end up inadvertently fostering a negative feeling or worse towards Jews.”

 

 

Press Release

Contact: Nicole Rosen 202-309-5724  

In First Public Comments About Case, EEOC Commissioner Calls Allegations of Anti-Semitism at Stanford “Deeply Troubling” 

Washington, D.C., January 12, 2022: During a panel on rising anti-Semitism and ways to address it in the workplace, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioner Andrea Lucas, for the very first time, commented on the Brandeis Center’s complaint of anti-Semitism at Stanford University, calling the 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 allegedly took place in one of Stanford University’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs as well as DEI leaders  “dismissing allegations of Zoom bombings with swastikas out of concern that it would draw attention away from anti-Black anti-racism concerns.” 

The Brandeis Center complaint against Stanford was filed in June and is currently being reviewed by the EEOC and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).  It alleges that Stanford University’s Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) division has created and fostered a hostile and unwelcoming environment for Jews in its DEI program, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.  

Lucas’ comments took place during a public webinar, hosted by the Brandeis Center, on ways to combat anti-Jewish discrimination and harassment in the workplace amid a nationwide surge of anti-Semitism.  The purpose of the webinar was to increase awareness and make sure that if people are feeling discriminated against or harassed, they know how to report it.  

During the section devoted to educating the public about actions and behavior prohibited under Title VII, Lucas and EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling noted that, in addition to religion, anti-Semitism can involve discrimination, harassment or retaliation related to national origin, race, color or even genetic information. And they cited a number of specific examples of ways anti-Semitism is currently manifesting in the workplace including, telling Jewish employees that Jews are powerful members of society who contribute to systemic racism, characterizing all Jewish people as privileged based on assumptions about their race or color, circulating conspiracy theories about COVID-19 or vaccines that blame Jews, trivializing the Holocaust by comparing it to mask or vaccine mandates, placing a swastika on a desk of a Jewish employee or via a Zoom bombing, and disproportionate criticism of Israel or conflation of all Jews with Israel.  The Commissioners also advised employers on best practices for preventing anti-Semitism and how to address it if it does occur.

Kenneth L. Marcus, founder of the Brandeis Center and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, who moderated the panel, noted that “frighteningly many of the examples cited by the Commissioners are exactly what we saw take place at Stanford University and we don’t want repeated in other DEI programs. These behaviors completely undermine the purpose for which DEI programs are developed.”

The Commissioners also noted that employers, like Stanford, are responsible for “specifically address[ing] anti-Semitism in anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, and diversity trainings, initiatives and policies” and “carefully audit[ing] DEI-anti-racism, content and provide[ing] implementation training, to ensure that these efforts do not contribute to anti-Semitism, including through assumptions, stereotypes of power, privilege, racial identity  or conclusions based on racial/ethnic disparities.”

According to the Brandeis complaint, Stanford’s CAPS DEI program has advanced anti-Semitic tropes concerning Jewish power, conspiracy, and control and endorsed the narrative that Jews support white supremacy and contribute to systemic racism. The complaint alleges the DEI program refused to address incidents of anti-Semitism, including swastika vandalism and that it excluded anti-Semitism from the program’s agenda and silenced and intimidated Jews who have spoken up to challenge the program’s failure to discuss incidents of Jew-hatred at Stanford.  

For example, during a virtual townhall for the Stanford community, unknown participants hijacked the meeting and shared racist messages that displayed images of swastikas and weapons and used the N-word. This incident caused widespread distress among members of Stanford’s student body due to the racist and anti-Semitic nature of the attack. At the next DEI meeting, DEI committee members addressed the racist and anti-Black content but did not mention the anti-Semitic images of swastikas. When asked about that, the answer was that the DEI committee intentionally decided to omit any mention of anti-Semitism so as not to dominate the discussion about anti-Black racism. Later, when swastikas were discovered inside Stanford’s Memorial Church, again, the DEI program ignored the incident in its next meeting.  This offensive behavior presents staff with the canard that they must choose between opposing anti- Semitism or fighting anti-Black racism. 

In addition, during a presentation to pre-doctoral students with information about CAPS internship and training opportunities, one of the presenters discussed a program that will explore how Jews are connected to white supremacy, and another presenter recommended a book that portrays the Jewish State of Israel as a racist endeavor. On another occasion a DEI committee member accused a Jewish member of the committee of being racist due to her Jewish identity. In addition, DEI committee members made repeated offensive and derogatory remarks toward both Jewish members of the committee, invoking classic anti-Semitic tropes, using ethnic and racial stereotypes of Jews as well as insults and put-downs about Jews.  

To date, Stanford has refused to recognize the problem or take appropriate corrective action to address it.  

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

January 10, 2022 ~ To learn morewatch the video of Alyza Lewin’s recent presentation, “Is Today’s Campus Climate Safe for Jews?”

As a child growing up in the Deep South during the upheavals of the 1960s, I saw firsthand how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became a powerful force for advancing social justice. I never would have imagined, however, that nearly six decades later, this same Federal law would become one of the most effective tools for fighting new forms of anti-Semitism emerging on U.S. college campuses.

That is what I learned in a highly informative recent program featuring Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Co-sponsored by Congregation Beth Am’s Jewish and Israel Advocacy Committee and the Oshman Family JCC in Palo Alto, CA, the program provided clarity and expertise about how the Civil Rights Act’s prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin—but not religion— are being applied to protect members of faith-based groups.

Since the early 2000s, successive presidential administrations of both political parties have affirmed that faith-based groups characterized by shared ancestry are protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.  The Brandeis Center is successfully making the case on behalf of Jewish students at colleges and universities nationwide that they are entitled to this legal protection.  The U.S. Department of Education provides detailed publicly available information about Title VI online, as does the U.S. Department of Justice.

Alyza Lewin. Photo courtesy of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

CONFUSING DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS WITH POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT. “University administrators often recognize the more traditional forms of anti-Semitism,” explained Lewin, “but fail to understand that anti-Semitism is like a virus that morphs in each generation.  They may confuse political disagreement with discriminatory actions by groups or individuals who ostracize, marginalize and exclude Jewish students, particularly those who support Israel.”  A college or university that ignores or tolerates such incidents can be subject to a legal complaint being filed against it with the Department of Education.  The institution then risks having its Federal funding cut off, which provides a significant incentive for negotiation.

DEFINING ANTI-SEMITISM. Educating university leaders about current forms of anti-Semitism is aided by sharing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition that is used by the U.S. Department of State as well as numerous other countries. In addition to providing examples, it specifically states (contrary to frequent misconceptions about potential limitations on free speech) that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”  However, allowing Jewish students to be pushed out of, or denied access to, activities on campus because they support Israel, or because they regard Zionism as central to their Jewish identity, is unlawful. Lewin also clarified that unfortunately the U.S. does not have a law against hate speech.

“Anti-Semitic acts and expressions are all too common in our country and in our world, and examples of that intolerance have occurred at this university as well. This is unacceptable. While the university has taken measures in the past to address this problem, the university must do more.”                                                   

University of Illinois Joint Statement on Anti-Semitism November 16, 2020 

The Brandeis Center is achieving successful outcomes, including a public statement on campus anti-Semitism issued jointly by the University of Illinois, Jewish community organizations and the Brandeis Center, which could become a model for others. It is also working collaboratively with Hillel International on a “Campus Climate Initiative” and finding that college and university administrators are receptive to these efforts. A Title VI Fact Sheet downloadable on the Center’s website provides a concise overview.

Although initial enforcement of the Civil Rights Act was met with anger and resistance in the 1960s and beyond, it continues to be a foundational law in the ongoing quest for greater justice and equity in American society. It is reassuring to know that Jewish college students today have expert legal guidance and support for seeking that law’s protection. In doing so, they may learn lessons that are as important as any taught in their classrooms.

To learn morewatch the video of Alyza Lewin’s recent presentation, “Is Today’s Campus Climate Safe for Jews?”

See the Commissioners’ PowerPoint presentation here.

Watch the Webinar Here!

Video Clip #1 – Stanford’s DEI Program

Video Clip #2 – DEI Policies

 

Two EEOC Commissioners to Share Expertise on Combating Anti-Semitism in the Workplace

Amid a nationwide surge of anti-Semitism, individuals are increasingly facing anti-Semitic incidents in their places of employment. Join the Brandeis Center on Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12pm EST, for a discussion with two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioners, Andrea Lucas and Keith Sonderling, about anti-Semitism in today’s workplace and what can be done about it.                                                                                                                                                                                             

The Brandeis Center recently exposed anti-Semitism in Stanford University’s DEI programming for university employees.

WHO: Federal EEOC Commissioners Andrea Lucas and Keith Sonderling

WHAT: Webinar on Combating Anti-Semitism in the Workplace

WHERE: Register at https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_-G3OE2nTQvy_djZgTl0WPA 

WHEN: Monday, January 10 at 12 p.m. ET

WHY: Individuals are increasingly facing anti-Semitic incidents in their workplaces.  Commissioners will offer expertise on what can be done. 

Brandeis Brief January 2022

We hope you have all had a joyous holiday season. This month LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus wrote about the best news in the fight against anti-Semitism this year and the importance of humility. LDB stood up for students at Duke University when their student government revoked the registration of their chapter of Students Supporting Israel (“SSI”), applying standards that had not been applied to any other student group. LDB’s virtual speaker series featured distinguished attorneys who combat anti-Semitism. And LDB President Alyza Lewin sat down for interviews with EMET and the “Nice Jewish Girls” podcast. Read about these and other exciting 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.
LDB Demands Duke overturn discriminatory treatment of SSI

LDB demanded that the administration of Duke University override a veto by the president of Duke’s student government and reinstate the student’ government’s previous decision to allow the registration of Duke’s chapter of SSI.

LDB told Duke’s administration in a letter that it was “legally obligated to take corrective action” , explaining that SSI was subjected to disparate treatment and “a university violates Title VI when its student government rejects a Jewish student organization’s request for recognition based on standards that are not applied to non-Jewish groups.”

Read the Brandeis Center’s letter to Duke here.
Read press coverage of the Brandeis Center’s work here: Jewish Telegraphic AgencyJerusalem PostFox NewsJewish News SyndicateAlgemeiner

“The Fight against anti-Semitism is also surging”
Kenneth L. Marcus, Jewish JournalAnalyzing the state of anti-Semitism in 2021, LDB Chairman Kenneth Marcus provided some “silver linings in the dark clouds that gather”. Marcus observed that advocacy groups like LDB have improved their tools to track and measure anti-Semitism and provided valuable new data, and governments in the U.S., European Union, and around the world have sounded the alarm and adopted new policies to fight anti-Semitism.Read more here.
Lawyers Against Anti-Semitism Speaker Series
Brandeis BlogOn December 14, LDB hosted a distinguished panel of lawyers addressing resurgent anti-Semitism and the role of lawyers in combating it. Carly Gamill (StandwithUs), Jerome Marcus (The Deborah Project), and Professor Steven Resnikoff (DePaul College of Law) addressed the audience on legal developments and next steps in the legal fight against anti-Semitism.
Watch here.
Alyza Lewin featured on Julia Jassey’s “Nice Jewish Girls” podcast

Julia Jassey, founder of Jewish on Campus, interviewed LDB President Alyza Lewin on her “Nice Jewish Girls” podcast for an episode, titled “The Case Against Anti-Semitism.” The two discussed Lewin’s contribution to Jewish civil rights efforts and how the law can be used to combat anti-Semitism. In addition Lewin shared how her faith impacts her work.

Listen here.

“Humility is to find ways we can live more gently with one another”
Kenneth L. Marcus, Washington Examiner 

LDB Founder and Chairman Kenneth Marcus wrote on the importance of humility in the holiday season. Marcus noted that at Hanukkah, “what we best remember is the humble oil that lit the Temple’s menorah for eight days.”

Marcus reflected on his own career as a civil rights enforcer in the context of American education. He called on Americans to humbly respect each other: “Each family has its own background, history, and heritage. Each child has her own flame to light. Our educators must respect them all.”

Read more.

Traldi speaks on the International Criminal Court ‘Situation in Palestine’

LDB Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi spoke with UK Lawyers for Israel about recent developments at the ICC and their implications for the ‘Situation in Palestine’ investigation.
Watch here.

LDB Study on Campus Anti-Semitism Cited in JNS
Sarah Stern, Jewish News SyndicateSarah Stern, Founder and President of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), cited LDB’s groundbreaking survey of openly Jewish college students in arguing for increased intellectual freedom and diversity on college campuses. She noted, “More than one-quarter of students reported feeling unsafe as Jews on their campus or in virtual campus settings. Half of Jewish students felt it was necessary to hide their Jewish identities, and more than half avoided expressing their true beliefs about Israel.”

Read Sarah Stern’s article here.

Read LDB’s full survey findings here.

Alyza Lewin explains how to Use the Legal System to Protect Jewish Students

LDB President Alyza Lewin was recently interviewed by Sarah Stern, Founder and President of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). During the December 29 EMET webinar, Lewin discussed recent Brandeis Center cases and explained how LDB uses the legal system to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism.

LDB President Alyza Lewin speaks to the Endowment for Middle East Truth on December 29, 2021.
“Ensuring that students are protected should be a bipartisan issue”
Kenneth Marcus, The HillLDB Founder and Chair Kenneth Marcus published an article in the Hill with Kimberly Richey, calling on the Biden Administration to preserve questions in the Civil Rights Data Collection process that record when sexual predators are transferred from school to school, putting new children at risk.

Marcus wrote, “in 2019, OCR’s receipt of K-12 sexual harassment complaints, including complaints of sexual violence, was fifteen times greater than it was in 2009…  Parents and students deserve to know how their schools are dealing with sexual misconduct.”

Read more.

The Brandeis Center Hires Human Rights Lawyer Arthur Traldi
Lynda PriorThis past month, the Brandeis Center appointed Arthur Traldi to a new Senior Counsel position. Mr. Traldi, a well-known international human rights lawyer, will primarily work with LDB’s law student programs, including LDB’s law school chapters and JIGSAW Fellows.
Brandeis Center Hiring
Brandeis Center
LDB continues to recruit for additional positions to address increasing anti-Semitism on and off of university campuses. LDB’s recent survey illustrated the historic challenges faced by Jewish college students, demonstrating for example that two thirds of Jewish fraternity and sorority students have felt unsafe on campus. In keeping with this expansion, LDB is currently recruiting its first Communications Director, as well as seeking applicants for fellowshipsclerkships, and internships.
Join Alyza D. Lewin,
President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center,
and Sarah Stern, President of The Endowment for Middle East Truth,

as they discuss using the legal system to protect Jewish students

Wednesday, December 29 , 2021 ~ 12:00 pm Eastern

Register Here!

As antisemitism reaches new heights in this country, our Jewish students have been on the front lines of attack from individual stu

dents, student groups, student governments and even faculty members. According to Professor Günther Jikeli of Indiana University, the worst place in America to be a Jew is on a college campus.In a recent survey, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB), found that 65% of openly Jewish students have felt unsafewhile 50% have hidden their Jewish identity.

Using the American legal system, there are measures that can protect our Jewish students from these vile antisemitic incidents. Come listen as noted legal scholar, Alyza Lewin, President of the Brandeis Center, discusses the issue with Sarah Stern, President of EMET.

Shares
Gates Of Olympus Gates of Olympus Indonesia Sweet Bonanza Plinko Casino Aviator AZ Plinko Sweet Bonanza AZ Aviator TR Sweet Bonanza TR Bigg Bass Bonanza Lucky Jet