Jewish Journal ~ By Kenneth L. Marcus, December 23, 2021 ~ At this time of year-end recollections, we cannot forget that antisemitism has reached historic levels this year, including attacks on Jews in the streets of Boston, New York, Los Angeles and Southern Florida. But the year has not been entirely bleak. There has been good news. The fight against antisemitism is also surging. For those who seek silver linings in the dark clouds that gather, here are ten positives from 2021. Surveys Document the Growing Problem — I know, this sounds like bad news. The Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Hillel International and my own Louis D. Brandeis Center published reports confirming that antisemitism is spiking and that Jewish Americans often feel the need to hide their identity for fear of attack. But the fact that we’re now doing better research is positive. We now know, for example, that two thirds of American Jews have encountered antisemitism over the past five years. (And we can wonder where the other third have been hiding.) Such data spurs action. European Commission Establishes Anti-Semitism Strategy — In January, the European Commission published a Handbook for using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s crucial Working Definition of antisemitism. This important publication demonstrated both the IHRA Working Definition’s widespread international support, despite persistent naysayers, and its practical usefulness. The Commission followed up later in the year, announcing its first-ever official strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life. One can only hope that the United States will also one day develop a national strategy. Biden Administration Embraces IHRA Working Definition In February, State Department official Kara McDonald announced the Biden administration’s support for the “invaluable” IHRA working definition and its “real-world examples,” similar to the support that the definition has received from the last few administrations. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken confirmed that the Administration “enthusiastically embraces” the definition. The White House followed up with an important if barely noticed provision in its Spring 2021 Unified Agenda, committing the U.S. Education Department to codifying President Trump’s Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism. In other words, the Biden administration is committed not only to embracing IHRA but also to implementing it. Max Price Survives Tufts Impeachment Effort — In February, Tufts University student government leader Max Price notched a rare but important victory against anti-Zionism, defeating an effort by Students for Justice in Palestine to impeach and remove him from office. An SJP complaint against Price had accused Israel and its Jewish supporters for fueling racist American law enforcement. SJP withdrew its complaint after Price, defended by the Brandeis Center, exposed the organization for its antisemitism and informed the university of its legal obligation to intervene. Price has urged further action to address antisemitism but commented, “I am relieved that my Judaism is no longer on trial.” As anti-Zionist organizations increasingly target individual Jewish student leaders for marginalization and exclusion, this case provides a roadmap for how Jewish students can prevail. Students Organize to Counter Jew-Hatred — More than I have ever seen before, Jewish students (like Max Price) are entering the fight against antisemitism. In March, George Washington University junior Blake Flaytonannounced the formation of a new national organization, the New Zionist Congress, to “advocate for Jewish people, not only in the United States, but everywhere in the world.” Similarly, University of Chicago sophomore Julia Jassey formed Jewish on Campus, which is fighting antisemitism on college campuses nationwide. Younger students are making their voices heard. High school student Zachary Singerman formed Gen Z Jews to call his generation to the fight. Civil Rights Commission Sounds the Alarm — In July, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a statement condemning anti-Jewish violence following the May conflict between Israel and Gaza. The last time the panel used such bold language to condemn antisemitism, I was the Commission’s director and Saddam Hussein had just been pulled out of his rat-hole. This time the Commission thundered, in words strong enough to send today’s haters back into their rat-holes, “antisemitic bigotry disguised as anti-Zionism is no less morally deplorable than any other form of hate.” Thirty-Eight Nations Boycott Antisemitic Durban Conference — In September, a record thirty-eight nations boycotted the United Nations’ conference marking the 20th anniversary of the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. They withdrew because of the blatant antisemitism and anti-Zionism at the 2001 event. The good news is that many nations, including the United States, are refusing to participate in the worst international celebrations of antisemitism. The question is when they will recognize how common antisemitism has become in domestic anti-racism programs as well. World Leaders Ignore Discredited “Jerusalem” Declaration — In October, in advance of the Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism, left-wing academics failed spectacularly in their efforts to derail the IHRA definition in favor of the controversial “Jerusalem” declaration. The latter statement has been criticized for accommodating, rather than challenging, what has been called “the new antisemitism.” For their efforts, the critics saw Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison use the occasion to announce that his country would become the thirtieth country to formally embrace IHRA, just weeks after Madrid joined the growing list of governments providing bi-partisan or multi-party support for the measure. Jury Holds Charlottesville Rioters Liable — In November, a Virginia federal jury found the primary organizers of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally liable under state law for injuries to counter-protesters, awarding more than $25 million in damages. The Charlottesville, Virginia, march had begun as a demonstration against the removal of a Confederate statue. Alt-right protesters chanted “Jews will not replace us.” One defendant struck counter-protester Heather Heyer with a car, killing her. The verdict underscores that law is an indispensable tool to fight antisemitism on the right as well as on the left. Nationwide Hannukah Initiative Shines a Light — During the eight nights of Hannukah, dozens of Jewish organizations (including mine) collaborated to “Shine a Light” on antisemitism. This theme was woven through activities ranging from the Times Square candle-lighting to billboards to gubernatorial visits and mayoral addresses. The initiative’s policy goals included urging corporations to include antisemitism education in their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, and convincing governments to follow the Biden Administration in adopting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Now we can only hope that a little of this Hannukah light extends still further, as we continue in the coming year to battle against the darkness. What we should take from this is that we are coming out of a difficult year with quite a few successes to show from it. There is greater public awareness of antisemitism now than there was a year ago. At the United Nations, dozens of nations refused to participate in the antisemitic Durban commemoration. In Europe, much progress is being made to use the IHRA definition more widely and consistently. In the United States, the Biden Administration is promising to use similar tools, much as the prior Obama, Bush, and Trump Administrations had done. On college campuses, new student voices are being heard. When necessary, legal tools are being used to defeat antisemitism from both left and right. 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
Civil Rights Commission Sounds the Alarm — In July, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a statement condemning anti-Jewish violence following the May conflict between Israel and Gaza. The last time the panel used such bold language to condemn antisemitism, I was the Commission’s director and Saddam Hussein had just been pulled out of his rat-hole. This time the Commission thundered, in words strong enough to send today’s haters back into their rat-holes, “antisemitic bigotry disguised as anti-Zionism is no less morally deplorable than any other form of hate.” Thirty-Eight Nations Boycott Antisemitic Durban Conference — In September, a record thirty-eight nations boycotted the United Nations’ conference marking the 20th anniversary of the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa. They withdrew because of the blatant antisemitism and anti-Zionism at the 2001 event. The good news is that many nations, including the United States, are refusing to participate in the worst international celebrations of antisemitism. The question is when they will recognize how common antisemitism has become in domestic anti-racism programs as well. World Leaders Ignore Discredited “Jerusalem” Declaration — In October, in advance of the Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism, left-wing academics failed spectacularly in their efforts to derail the IHRA definition in favor of the controversial “Jerusalem” declaration. The latter statement has been criticized for accommodating, rather than challenging, what has been called “the new antisemitism.” For their efforts, the critics saw Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison use the occasion to announce that his country would become the thirtieth country to formally embrace IHRA, just weeks after Madrid joined the growing list of governments providing bi-partisan or multi-party support for the measure. Jury Holds Charlottesville Rioters Liable — In November, a Virginia federal jury found the primary organizers of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally liable under state law for injuries to counter-protesters, awarding more than $25 million in damages. The Charlottesville, Virginia, march had begun as a demonstration against the removal of a Confederate statue. Alt-right protesters chanted “Jews will not replace us.” One defendant struck counter-protester Heather Heyer with a car, killing her. The verdict underscores that law is an indispensable tool to fight antisemitism on the right as well as on the left. Nationwide Hannukah Initiative Shines a Light — During the eight nights of Hannukah, dozens of Jewish organizations (including mine) collaborated to “Shine a Light” on antisemitism. This theme was woven through activities ranging from the Times Square candle-lighting to billboards to gubernatorial visits and mayoral addresses. The initiative’s policy goals included urging corporations to include antisemitism education in their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, and convincing governments to follow the Biden Administration in adopting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Now we can only hope that a little of this Hannukah light extends still further, as we continue in the coming year to battle against the darkness. What we should take from this is that we are coming out of a difficult year with quite a few successes to show from it. There is greater public awareness of antisemitism now than there was a year ago. At the United Nations, dozens of nations refused to participate in the antisemitic Durban commemoration. In Europe, much progress is being made to use the IHRA definition more widely and consistently. In the United States, the Biden Administration is promising to use similar tools, much as the prior Obama, Bush, and Trump Administrations had done. On college campuses, new student voices are being heard. When necessary, legal tools are being used to defeat antisemitism from both left and right. 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
Washington Examiner ~ December 23, 2021 12:01 AM By KENNETH MARCUS For many people, humility is a message of the season. On Christmas, some like to recall from Philippians 2:8 that Jesus “humbled himself,” becoming “obedient to the point of death.” For some Jews like myself, Hanukkah also teaches humility. The Maccabees who drove Assyrians from the Jerusalem Temple enjoyed a great victory. But what we best remember is the humble oil that lit the Temple’s menorah for eight days. In our day, humility is rare and precious. In this season and in the coming year, I hope to learn from those who show humility and resist hubris. In my work as a civil rights lawyer, I sometimes encounter people who ask me to protect their own freedoms, especially their freedom of speech, while denying similar freedom to others. It is hubris to think that we can suppress the speech of others while we remain free. This holds whether the speech we wish to suppress is progressive, conservative, Zionist, pro-Palestinian, pro-Bible, or LGBTQ. Humility is to support freedom even for those whom we do not understand or whom we think we understand all too well. Years ago, I recommended legislation that would protect all faiths from discrimination in schools and colleges. What I found is that everyone to whom I spoke wanted this freedom for themselves and their children. But many feared how others would use it. Liberals feared that Evangelicals would pray in the schools. Conservatives feared that Muslims would do the same. It is hubris to think that we can suppress the faith of others while we ourselves remain free. Humility is to understand that freedom for one requires freedom for all. Hubris is to assume, whether on the college campus or elsewhere in our culture, that the “credibly accused” must be presumed guilty, whether they receive due process or not. It is hubris to assume we know why victims do not step forward when survivors are so often mistreated by those to whom they turn for help. Humility is to protect both honest accusers and the unjustly accused. Hubris is to assume that we harbor no prejudices other than what we acknowledge in ourselves. It is also hubris to assume we understand the weaknesses of others better than they understand themselves. Humility is to understand that we must all be kinder with one another. Hubris is to think we understand the shoes in which others walk. Or that we understand the disadvantages that they have overcome. Or that we can understand them based on the color of their skin. Or the privileges we think they enjoy. Humility is to see uniqueness in every soul. In education, hubris is to think that one size fits all. Each student has a different set of needs, potentialities, and abilities. Each family has its own background, history, and heritage. Each child has her own flame to light. Our educators must respect them all. Hubris it is for educators to believe that we can succeed with centralized educational planning when governments have failed in centralized economic planning. Humility is to grasp that success is the work of many minds. Conservatives should be humbled by advances that have come from liberals, such as child labor laws, women’s suffrage, and anti-discrimination laws. Liberals should be humbled by the limits of government’s ability to correct social problems and the tendency of government solutions to make some problems worse. Among educators, hubris is to think we can make decisions for families that parents are too unenlightened to understand. Humility is to grasp that parents must tend not only to their children’s health and secular education but also to their spiritual well-being. Hubris is to assume that we can recognize talent when it is wrapped differently than us: in different skin, accent, ability, or gender. Hubris is also to assume that others are blinded by their own race, sex, or ethnicity. It is hubris to assume that cultural elites can be trusted to use ethnic stereotypes that we know to be invidious when used by others. Humility is to appreciate the things that we cannot see and the things that others can. Hubris is to believe that we can be trusted to treat others differently based on their race, even if others cannot. It is hubris to believe that we can wield racial preferences virtuously, even if others cannot be trusted to do so. Years ago, as a young civil rights enforcer, I thought I could detect racial discrimination with statistical tools and computer programs. It was humbling to learn that older investigators could locate it better through intuition and experience. It is hubris to assume that statistics can discern discrimination from quantitative patterns. It is humility to see that numbers hide a myriad of stories. For liberals, it is hubris to assume that anti-Asian discrimination exists only on the streets. For conservatives, it is hubris to assume that anti-Asian discrimination exists only in affirmative action programs. Humility is to grasp that challenges exist everywhere, including in our own hearts. For the Left, it is hubris to assume that antisemitism exists only in the alt-right and in riots such as those that scarred Charlottesville and the U.S. Capitol. For the Right, it is hubris to assume that antisemitism exists only on the Left, on campuses, and among the Squad on Capitol Hill. Humility is to grasp that our own backyards need to be tended first. As a young lawyer, I supported the growth of diversity programs. It is humbling, as these programs and I have aged, to see how they too sometimes harbor hidden forms of hate. A new study shows that Diversity, Equity & Inclusion programs often reflect the sort of bias, specifically antisemitism, that they are intended to eliminate. It is hubris to deny that our best efforts to improve ourselves often go astray. Humility is to find ways in which we can live more gently with one another. Kenneth L. Marcus is the 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.
JTA — A prominent Jewish civil rights group is demanding that the administration of Duke University override the student government after its president denied recognition to a campus pro-Israel group. In November, the student government president, Christina Wang, decided to veto a student Senate vote to charter Duke SSI, the campus chapter of the international campus Zionist group Students Supporting Israel. Wang cited an Instagram post from SSI that she termed “potentially hostile or harmful.” The Louis D. Brandeis Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit advocating for Jewish students, told Duke’s administration in a letter that it was “legally obligated to take corrective action” in the case, saying the pro-Israel group was “subjected to special scrutiny that other groups did not have to endure.” In a reply on Friday to the Brandeis Center letter, a university official said the university is continuing to investigate whether the veto constitutes discrimination. The Brandeis Center letter also noted that Wang’s stated rationale for vetoing recognition of Duke SSI was a “rather anodyne” post on social media. The Instagram post in question was in response to a student who charged that the pro-Israel group “promotes settler colonialism.” SSI responded in its own Instagram post, saying “please allow us to educate you” and inviting the critic to attend one of the group’s events. Wang did not say why that response was “potentially hostile or harmful.” Duke’s President Vincent E. Price and Provost Sally Kornbluth had already responded to Wang’s decision via a statement last month. According to the statement, the veto “raised concerns about whether students have been treated in accordance with university policy that prohibits discrimination and harassment based upon national origin and religion.” The statement continued, “The university has identified options for SSI to secure financial and programmatic support.” Alyza Lewin, the Brandeis Center’s president, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the statement was welcome but insufficient. “They clearly have the authority to turn around and say, ‘We are going to correct this misstep, we are going to make sure that students supporting Israel is treated no differently than any other recognized student organization,’” she said. The Brandeis Center letter noted a resolution agreement with the U.S. Department of Education over a separate incident involving alleged antisemitism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in 2019. In its reply to the Brandeis Center, the university said that “the university is taking these allegations seriously, consistent with the resolution agreement.” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits national origin and other forms of discrimination at federally funded programs. By Ron Kampeas (Posted Dec 21, 2021 at 5: 35 PM)
Fox News A civil rights organization is telling Duke University it is “legally obligated” to grant a pro-Israel student organization official recognition on campus. During the Nov. 10 Duke Student Government senate meeting, the proposed Students Supporting Israel chapter was granted official recognition. However, when legislation approving the pro-Israel organization went to student government President Christina Wang, she vetoed it. In a statement to Duke Student Government senators obtained by the Duke Chronicle on Nov. 15, Wang said that she decided not to allow Students Supporting Israel to become an official recognized student organization because of a social media post responding to criticism from another student. Wang claimed that Students Supporting Israel “singled out an individual student on their organization’s social media account in a way that was unacceptable for any student group and appeared antithetical to the group’s stated mission to be welcoming and inclusive to all Duke students, and educational in mission and purpose,” according to the article. DUKE UNIVERSITY SGA PRESIDENT REJECTS PRO-ISRAEL GROUP OVER ‘UNACCEPTABLE’ INSTAGRAM POST FILE – This Jan. 28, 2019 file photo shows the entrance to the main Duke University campus in Durham, N.C. Duke University announced Wednesday, March 10, 2021, that it is considering ending in-person classes as an uptick in COVID-19 cases over the course of five days worsens and students continue to violate health guidelines. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File) ((AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File)) In a letter to Duke University, the Louis D. Brandeis Center said Duke is obligated to grant Students Supporting Israel official recognition as a student organization on campus. The civil rights organization said it appreciates Duke University’s effort to address the situation in a recent statement but says it’s not enough. “While we appreciate your efforts to address the matter in your recent statement, it is not sufficient under the law merely to provide ‘options to secure financial and programmatic support’ without formal recognition,” the letter states. Alyza Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center, and Denise Katz-Prober, director of legal Initiatives, recalled a similar situation at Williams College where a student government refused to recognize a pro-Israel organization. In that case, a federal complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Duke University (AP Images) The college eventually resolved the complaint by formally recognizing the pro-Israel student organization and guaranteeing it access to resources. “Following this example, Duke should formally recognize Duke SSI and provide public assurances that Duke SSI will have equal access to the same benefits and resources that are available to other recognized student organizations,” the letter states. Lewin told Fox News that Duke University should overturn the decision made by the student government, noting that it has made a promise to students that their freedom of speech would be protected. “If they have policies regarding freedom of speech and the protection of free expression, if they are statements that are made by the administrators about how they will protect the free speech of their students, those policies and those statements are treated as creating a contractual obligation by the university to actually live up to those promises right and protect the speech of the students and of the community. And students and the community rely on those promises,” Lewin said. Adam Sabes is a writer at Fox News. You can reach him at Adam.Sabes@fox.com
FIRE ~ by Sabrina Conza ~ December 17, 2021 ~ A month after a pro-Israel club was denied recognition by Duke University’s student government, Zionist and civil liberties advocacy groups continue to sound the alarm, urging Duke to comply with its promises to students by granting the student organization full recognition. As FIRE reported at the time, on Nov. 15, Duke Student Government President Christina Wang vetoed the recognition of a Students Supporting Israel chapter based on one of the group’s social media posts, which Wang deemed uncivil. After receiving a letter from FIRE urging it to grant SSI recognition, Duke’s student senate upheld the veto, leaving SSI unrecognized because of a solitary social media post. On Nov. 24, Duke President Vincent Price released a statement pledging to provide “options” as well as “financial and programmatic support” to SSI. FIRE then wrote to Price on Dec. 8, explaining that Duke must provide SSI with resources commensurate to recognized student organizations so as not to contravene explicit promises that students enjoy expressive and associational rights. Duke is violating its own promises of free expression by not recognizing SSI. Now, about a month after the veto was upheld, SSI remains unrecognized. FIRE asked Duke to respond to our Dec. 8 letter by Wednesday, but we have not yet heard back. Zionist and civil liberties groups, however, continue to put pressure on Duke to recognize SSI with no signs of stopping. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a non-profit which advocates for the rights of Jewish people, sent a letter to Duke on Dec. 14, citing FIRE and stating: Duke has made clear promises to its community members to protect the freedom of its students to speak on matters of public importance. And these commitments to free speech and open expression have legal ramifications pursuant to applicable federal regulations. Zachor Legal Institute, which aims to combat antisemitism, wrote a letter to Duke in support of SSI and expressing agreement with FIRE’s stance that Duke is violating its own promises of free expression by not recognizing SSI. Additionally, the Zionist Organization of America, a pro-Israel advocacy group, called on Duke to grant SSI recognition: Duke’s response to DSG’s actions toward SSI was inadequate. As Duke knows or should know, there is no question that DSG’s actions were wrong and violated university policies. DSG violated Duke’s policy recognizing the right to freedom of expression, and singled out and penalized a pro-Israel group, while ignoring a Duke anti-Israel group’s long history of harassing Jewish and pro-Israel students and making them feel unwelcome and unsafe. Duke has the right and the obligation to override DSG’s wrongful decision and should do so without further delay. Other groups like the Coalition for Jewish Values and Standing for Freedom Center have also spoken out against Duke for not recognizing SSI. While we are disappointed to have not heard back from Duke, we are heartened to see other organizations standing up for SSI’s expressive and associational rights. Because of those rights, which Duke expressly promises to its students, the university must provide SSI not just with fiscal resources but also all other resources promised to student groups. (FIRE recognizes those strong promises of free expression by awarding Duke our highest “green light” rating for policies protecting students’ expressive rights.) FIRE calls on Duke to right its student government’s wrong by either recognizing SSI as an official student group or providing it with the same resources as other student groups on campus.
Press Release ~ Contact: Nicole Rosen 202-309-5724 ~ Civil Rights Experts to Duke: Federal Law Requires You Recognize Students Supporting Israel Duke’s Remedy to Date Insufficient Under the Law Washington, D.C., December 14: Noting that Duke University’s so-called remedy is insufficient under the law, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law today called on President Vincent Price to formally recognize the Duke chapter of Students Supporting Israel. According to the Brandeis Center, formal recognition is the “only way to ensure the University’s compliance” with federal law. In November, only days after the Duke University Student Government (DSG) voted to recognize campus group Students Supporting Israel (SSI), DSG president Christina Wang vetoed the recognition. Wang claimed SSI inappropriately “singled out an individual student on their organization’s social media account.” The incident in question involves SSI’s response to a Duke student’s tweet that read, “My school promotes settler colonialism.” SSI retweeted the student’s post with the following response, “To Yana and others like her, please allow us to educate you on what ‘settler colonialism’ actually is and why Israel does not fall under this category whatsoever,” and they invited the Duke community to an “SSI 101” event to discuss further. After the Duke Senate upheld Wang’s veto, President Price issued a statement that although the student government’s decision is “independent” from the university, the administration will provide financial and program support to SSI without formal recognition by the student government. “While we appreciate your efforts to address the matter in your recent statement,” wrote the Brandeis Center legal advocates in today’s letter, “it is not sufficient under the law merely to provide ‘options to secure financial and programmatic support’ without formal recognition.” The Brandeis Center went on to explain why Duke is “legally obligated to take corrective action in response to the unlawful treatment of Duke SSI by formally recognizing the student organization and ensuring it has equal access to resources.” According to the Brandeis Center, Duke’s behavior violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and shared ethnicity. The Brandeis Center notes that from the moment Duke SSI applied for recognition, it was subjected to special scrutiny not applied to other non-Jewish groups. First, student representatives from Duke SSI were forced to endure extensive questioning before the student government vote. Second, once a prospective student group fulfills all application requirements, as Duke SSI did, the student government usually approves the group’s recognition unanimously. In the case of SSI, however, student senators voiced opposition when a formal vote was held on the question of recognition. Third, up until this incident, the presidential veto had never been used to revoke a formal recognition. In fact, when Duke’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) posted a photograph of students affiliated with another pro-Israel group on campus (DIPAC) with the antagonizing caption, “Because y’all are a bunch of racist clowns,” and tweeted, “So I’m going to repeat myself again, f**k DIPAC and every Zionist on campus,” SJP’s recognition was not even challenged, let alone revoked. “The DSG’s action were discriminatory, and require action by the University,” wrote the Brandeis Center. “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.” The letter notes that when Williams College took similarly discriminatory behavior and refused to recognize a pro-Israel student organization based on a rationale never applied to a non-Jewish group, a complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, and a Resolution Agreement was triggered. Williams eventually took appropriate corrective action by formally recognizing the student organization. The Brandeis Center letter also echoes concerns raised by other leading free speech experts, noting that the U.S. Department of Education’s regulation on Religious Liberty and Free Inquiry, implementing Executive Order 13864 (Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities) requires private universities to honor their own policies regarding free speech as a condition of any and all grants received from the Department. Duke’s commitments to free speech are publicly known and relied upon by current and prospective Duke students, their families, federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations. According to the Free Inquiry Rule, the university “must comply with its stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech, including academic freedom, as a material condition of the Department’s grant.” Failure to protect students’ speech rights, therefore, could cause the university to lose its federal funding. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), “Duke’s student government is consciously punishing SSI for engaging in debate and responding to its critics – engagement that should be encouraged, not punished, at an institution dedicated to free expression.” FIRE also wrote to the Duke Student Government urging it to overturn Wang’s veto, and later to Price urging him to rectify the situation and ensure that SSI’s Duke chapter is promptly recognized. “This is not the first time Duke has faced incidents of anti-Semitism on its campus,” concluded the Brandeis letter. Less than three years ago, “Duke entered into a Resolution Agreement with OCR in which it agreed to take certain measures to address allegations of anti-Semitism. In light of that pending Agreement, the University should be particularly sensitive to its legal obligation to address instances of anti-Semitic discrimination on campus in a prompt and effective manner.” Find the full Brandeis Center letter to Duke University President Price here. ### 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.
Join Alyza D. Lewin, President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center, on the Edwin Black Show for an informative discussion on Anti-Semitism at Duke University. Thursday, December 15, 2021 9:00 am Pacific | 12:00 pm Eastern Duke University settled anti-Semitism complaints just last year. Community leaders are astonished and mobilized now that formal recognition of the Students Supporting Israel chapter has been vetoed by student government leadership. SSI president Ilan Sinelnikov and Brandeis Center president Alyza Lewin join Edwin.
December 14 – We will present a national webinar on “Lawyers Against Anti-Semitism,” featuring Carly Gammill (StandWithUs), Jerome Marcus (Marcus & Auerbach), and Prof. Steven Resnikoff (DePaul Law). | 9am Pacific | 11am Central |12pm Eastern What role do lawyers have in fighting the resurgence of anti-Semitism? What works best, and how can we do better? Three distinguished lawyers present their views from the trenches of public interest advocacy, law firm practice, and higher education. Register Here! MEET OUR PANELISTS Carly Gammill is a seasoned constitutional litigator with extensive experience handling matters involving free speech and religious liberties and fighting antisemitism, including the anti-Israel, antisemitic BDS campaign, on campuses, in court, and at the United Nations. Carly’s work in combating antisemitism derives in part from her background in the educational field, as well as from a deep personal conviction that the world–including people of other races and religions–cannot afford to stand by silently while the Jewish people are once again targeted, marginalized, demonized, and harmed. Carly is the Director of the new StandWithUs Center for Combating Antisemitism and serves the StandWithUs Saidoff Legal Department as Counsel for Litigation Strategy. Jerome M. Marcus for the past thirteen years Jerome has practiced primarily in the area of antitrust, health care and employee benefits, and appellate litigation. He has served as lead counsel in numerous complex litigations, including both class and non-class matters, on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants. He attended the University of Chicago, from which he received his B.A. in 1980, his M.B.A. in 1981 and his J.D. in 1986. He was Associate Editor of the University of Chicago Law Review, and Executive Editor of the Legal Forum of the University of Chicago. He then served as Law Clerk for the Hon. Edward R. Becker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1986-1987. He was Special Assistant to the Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of State in 1987-1988; Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1991-1993. He served as a Consultant to the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, 1992-1993. Steven H. Resnicoff is a professor at DePaul University College of Law, where he has received numerous awards for his teaching and scholarship, and director of its Center for Jewish Law & Judaic Studies (JLJS). Former chair of the Association of American Law School’s Section on Jewish Law and former chair of the executive board of the Jewish Law Association, Professor Resnicoff earned a BA at Princeton (where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and selected as a Scholar of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs), a JD at Yale, and advanced rabbinic ordination from the late sage, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory. Professor Resnicoff is the author or co-author of five books, including Understanding Jewish Law, published by LexisNexis, and more than 50 articles and book chapters. Much of his work focuses on the interrelationships between Jewish and secular legal systems. He also teaches as an adjunct in the doctoral program at the Spertus Institute for Jewish Leadership and Learning in Chicago. An internationally known scholar and lecturer, Professor Resnicoff’s secular lar areas of expertise include bankruptcy, bioethics, commercial paper, contracts and professional responsibility.
The Brandeis Center Hires Human Rights Lawyer Arthur Traldi Contact: Lynda Prior, lprior@brandeiscenter.com Washington, DC ~ December 10, 2021: The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (“LDB”) is pleased to announce the appointment of Arthur R. Traldi, Esq., 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, and on LDB’s expanding docket of anti-Semitism cases. LDB Founder and Chairman Kenneth Marcus said, “People often ask me if I am discouraged by the problems that we are seeing on campus this year, and I have to say that it is a legitimate question. For students and faculty at many institutions, this has been a very difficult year, with post-Gaza harassment worsening a situation which COVID had already made quite challenging. At the same time, I am pleased that the Brandeis Center is now growing to meet this challenge, and we are now better positioned to fight anti-Semitism and defend Jewish students than ever before.” LDB President Alyza Lewin added, “Arthur will be a terrific resource for our JIGSAW fellows and law school chapters. His experience in complex human rights litigation and deep understanding of international human rights law will enhance and strengthen our anti-discrimination work. I am thrilled to have him on our team.” Mr. Traldi’s appointment continues the Brandeis Center’s ongoing expansion as the civil rights organization marks its tenth anniversary fighting anti-Semitism on and off university campuses. Chairman Marcus returned from government service last year, joining forces with LDB President Alyza Lewin, to develop the Louis D. Brandeis Center into a bigger and stronger organization. Last year, the Center announced the arrival of Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober and Executive Administrator Lynda Prior. Earlier this year, Vice Chair Rachel Lerman assumed, in addition to her board role, additional legal advocacy duties as Senior Counsel and Mitchell Webber and Josha Swidler joined the Center’s Board. “I am honored to join the Brandeis Center,” Mr. Traldi stated. “I am particularly excited to have an opportunity to pursue three of my professional passions here: helping future lawyers develop their skills, advancing human rights, and fighting against anti-Semitism.” 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 fellowships, clerkships, and internships. About Arthur Traldi: Arthur R. Traldi has served at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He has worked and published articles on prosecuting atrocity crimes motivated by ethnic or religious hatred. He consults on various human rights and rule of law issues through Lexpat Global Services. Mr. Traldi has worked on amicus briefs in several major cases on behalf of Jewish organizations, including in U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing Holocaust restitution claims brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Before entering human rights work, he clerked for Judge Arthur L. Zulick on the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas and Justice Debra Todd on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Mr. Traldi regularly lectures at colleges and law schools; has taught in the international human rights and humanitarian law program at European University-Viadrina, among others; and has presented in training programs for lawyers involved in complex cases in a variety of different countries. He received a B.A. degree from The College of William and Mary and a J.D. degree from Georgetown University Law Center and is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and before the United States Supreme Court, as well as certain international courts. 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 Hill December 6, 2021 by Kenneth L. Marcus and Kimberly M. Richey, Opinion Contributors — The Biden administration recently announced its new proposed Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), providing numerous revisions to the most authoritative repository of information on civil rights in public schools. Predictably, the Biden proposal seeks new data on coronavirus responses and LGBTQ issues, including the addition of a nonbinary sex category. Commendably, the new version retains expanded provisions on religious harassment that we had added last year when we headed the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Shockingly, however, the Biden proposal eliminates some of the most important provisions that we had added, particularly, new questions regarding practices that shield sexual predators from public scrutiny. In the last year of the Trump administration, we designed a new civil rights data collection that would highlight the most alarming trend that our team had observed: the disturbing increase in sexual assault in K-12 public schools. Over the preceding decade, the public had become increasingly aware of sexual assault in higher education. But the public school problems had been largely swept under the rug. In fact, 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. The significant increase in complaints, together with explosive revelations in the Catholic Church, provoked an obvious question: Is there a similar problem in the public schools? In September of 2019, we led the largest investigation that the agency had ever conducted into sexual assault within an urban public school system. What we found in Chicago Public Schools was a wake-up call: countless horrific incidents, many involving teachers or coaches, that had been inadequately addressed. And there is no reason to assume that this problem is not recurring elsewhere. In February of last year, we launched a nationwide initiative to combat the rise of sexual harassment and sexual assault in K-12 in public schools. We opened two dozen compliance reviews across the country involving both student-on-student and staff-on-student incidents — and aimed to improve the collection of sexual assault data. We launched data reviews to examine how schools were collecting and reporting CRDC sexual assault data and added new questions to the CRDC to collect information on teacher-on-student sexual assault. The most concerning issue — and the one that is stripped from the Biden version of our collection — are the new questions we added to get information on “pass the trash” trends in schools. “Pass the trash” is the name for the practice whereby a school employee who engages in sexual misconduct with a student is “passed” from one district to another. In these situations, the teacher accused of sexual misconduct resigns before he or she is terminated, or even prior to the conclusion of an investigation. The sexual predator obtains employment in a new district where they prey on new student-victims. Because the investigation ends with the teacher’s resignation, there is no formal finding of wrongdoing to share with victims or with subsequent employers. In other situations, sexual predators are reassigned to other positions or schools within the same district. It is commonly used by administrators who wish to pacify angry parents by moving an alleged perpetrator to a different location in which families are unaware of his background. This practice was infamously used recently in Loudoun County, Va., where a student accused of raping a girl in a bathroom was moved to a different school. The superintendent denied that the case had happened and the victim’s father was arrested after trying to disclose the matter at a school board meeting. The case exploded into public attention, possibly influencing Virginia’s recent statewide election when the perpetrator was later arrested for assaulting a different girl at his new school, and evidence emerged suggesting a cover-up by school administrators. “Passing the trash” has been so widespread that Congress included provisions requiring states to adopt policies to protect students in the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, which was signed into law in 2015. Malala Yousafzai urges US to take action for Afghan women and girls Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade: poll The Biden administration’s proposal to eliminate data collection on “pass the trash” is a dreadful mistake. The proposal perpetuates practices we sought to overturn: concealment and secrecy in teacher sexual misconduct cases. It is time these incidents are brought to light. The news from Loudon County reveals the tragic consequences when such information is shielded from public view. Parents and students deserve to know how their schools are dealing with sexual misconduct. Ensuring that students are protected should be a bipartisan issue. If the Biden administration is concerned about enforcing Title IX and protecting victims of sexual assault, they should not weaken the Civil Rights Data Collection. They should prioritize transparency and student safety and maintain the CRDC’s “pass the trash” provisions. Kenneth L. Marcus served as the 11th assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (2018-2020). Kimberly M. Richey served as principal deputy assistant secretary for Civil Rights (2018-2020) and acting assistant secretary for Civil Rights (2020-2021).
The Biden administration recently announced its new proposed Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), providing numerous revisions to the most authoritative repository of information on civil rights in public schools. Predictably, the Biden proposal seeks new data on coronavirus responses and LGBTQ issues, including the addition of a nonbinary sex category. Commendably, the new version retains expanded provisions on religious harassment that we had added last year when we headed the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Shockingly, however, the Biden proposal eliminates some of the most important provisions that we had added, particularly, new questions regarding practices that shield sexual predators from public scrutiny. In the last year of the Trump administration, we designed a new civil rights data collection that would highlight the most alarming trend that our team had observed: the disturbing increase in sexual assault in K-12 public schools. Over the preceding decade, the public had become increasingly aware of sexual assault in higher education. But the public school problems had been largely swept under the rug. In fact, 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. The significant increase in complaints, together with explosive revelations in the Catholic Church, provoked an obvious question: Is there a similar problem in the public schools? In September of 2019, we led the largest investigation that the agency had ever conducted into sexual assault within an urban public school system. What we found in Chicago Public Schools was a wake-up call: countless horrific incidents, many involving teachers or coaches, that had been inadequately addressed. And there is no reason to assume that this problem is not recurring elsewhere. In February of last year, we launched a nationwide initiative to combat the rise of sexual harassment and sexual assault in K-12 in public schools. We opened two dozen compliance reviews across the country involving both student-on-student and staff-on-student incidents — and aimed to improve the collection of sexual assault data. We launched data reviews to examine how schools were collecting and reporting CRDC sexual assault data and added new questions to the CRDC to collect information on teacher-on-student sexual assault. The most concerning issue — and the one that is stripped from the Biden version of our collection — are the new questions we added to get information on “pass the trash” trends in schools. “Pass the trash” is the name for the practice whereby a school employee who engages in sexual misconduct with a student is “passed” from one district to another. In these situations, the teacher accused of sexual misconduct resigns before he or she is terminated, or even prior to the conclusion of an investigation. The sexual predator obtains employment in a new district where they prey on new student-victims. Because the investigation ends with the teacher’s resignation, there is no formal finding of wrongdoing to share with victims or with subsequent employers. In other situations, sexual predators are reassigned to other positions or schools within the same district. It is commonly used by administrators who wish to pacify angry parents by moving an alleged perpetrator to a different location in which families are unaware of his background. This practice was infamously used recently in Loudoun County, Va., where a student accused of raping a girl in a bathroom was moved to a different school. The superintendent denied that the case had happened and the victim’s father was arrested after trying to disclose the matter at a school board meeting. The case exploded into public attention, possibly influencing Virginia’s recent statewide election when the perpetrator was later arrested for assaulting a different girl at his new school, and evidence emerged suggesting a cover-up by school administrators. “Passing the trash” has been so widespread that Congress included provisions requiring states to adopt policies to protect students in the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, which was signed into law in 2015. Malala Yousafzai urges US to take action for Afghan women and girls Majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade: poll The Biden administration’s proposal to eliminate data collection on “pass the trash” is a dreadful mistake. The proposal perpetuates practices we sought to overturn: concealment and secrecy in teacher sexual misconduct cases. It is time these incidents are brought to light. The news from Loudon County reveals the tragic consequences when such information is shielded from public view. Parents and students deserve to know how their schools are dealing with sexual misconduct. Ensuring that students are protected should be a bipartisan issue. If the Biden administration is concerned about enforcing Title IX and protecting victims of sexual assault, they should not weaken the Civil Rights Data Collection. They should prioritize transparency and student safety and maintain the CRDC’s “pass the trash” provisions. Kenneth L. Marcus served as the 11th assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (2018-2020). Kimberly M. Richey served as principal deputy assistant secretary for Civil Rights (2018-2020) and acting assistant secretary for Civil Rights (2020-2021).