Forward ~ by Rachel Hale, October 7, 2021~ Senior Chloe Levian has spent little over a week back at the University of California, Los Angeles, but has already added an additional stressor to her workload: handling anti-Zionism on campus. “Israel’s definitely a divisive topic here. The department statements have just made it very difficult to want to be a loud and proud Zionist on campus,” said Levian, the president of Bruins for Israel. “I’ve already experienced four to five incidents where I just felt unwelcomed as a Zionist.” The statements Levian refers to are those made by UCLA’s Gender Studiesand Asian American Studiesdepartments in wake of May’s Israel-Gaza tension. They’re one of what the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel estimates to be more than 350 departments, programs, unions and socieities worldwide that have made statements in support of Palestinian rights, garnering nearly 24,000 signatures from departments like California-Berkeley’s Ethnic Studies, Yale’s Ethnicity, Rights, and Migration and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Gender Studies and Asian American Studies departments. But even as these departments have entered the scrum of Mideast politics, pro-Israel professors and administrators are pushing back, saying such statements make campus a hostile environment for students like Levian. The debate over who has the right to take what stands on Israel is embroiling university administrators across the country, and being played out in courts as well. The academic debates occurring in classrooms mirror those happening across kitchen tables and dorm rooms, where Americans are grappling with a paradigm shift on how to view Israel following increased tension in Israel-Gaza in May. Israeli human rights organizations like Yesh Din and B’Tselem joined Human Rights Watch in accusing Israel of committing apartheid, and a September poll conducted by researchers at Maryland University and George Washington University found that a majority of U.S. Middle Eastern Studies scholars view Israel’s control of the West Bank and Gaza as similar to apartheid. Within the Jewish community, a Pew Researchpoll found eight in 10 American Jews still believe that “caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them,” but another 41% of Jews said they are not very, or at all, emotionally attached to Israel, and a recent poll of Jewish voters found that 22% agreed that Israel was committing genocide. Of all the statements gaining traction, the most prominent, perhaps, is that of the Palestinian Feminist Collective. Signed by nearly 130 departments, the statement, titled “Gender Studies Departments in Solidarity With Palestinian Feminist Collective,”argues that “Palestine Is a Feminist Issue.” “We condemn the forced removal of Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, the raiding of the al-Aqsa mosque, the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, one of the world’s most densely populated areas, and the de facto annexation of East Jerusalem, which by international law is illegally occupied territory.” It continued later, “We do not subscribe to a “both sides” rhetoric that erases the military, economic, media, and global power that Israel has over Palestine. This is not a ‘conflict’ that is too ‘controversial and complex’ to assess.” The statement goes on to call for an “end of Israel’s military occupation of Palestine and for the Palestinian right to return to their home,” characterizing ongoing tension as part of ethnic cleansing and calling the U.S. complicit in settler colonialism. Other prominent statements include that of Palestine and Praxis: Scholars for Palestinian Freedom and the National Women’s Studies Association, in addition to interdepartmental statements from schools like Princeton and Harvard, the latter of which received over 900 signatures from students, faculty and alumni. Setting a free speech precedent Some educators, however, take issue with what they refer to as the “incideniary” and “alienating” language used in statements like these. In addition to national pressure from a Hillel International statement, both StandWithUs and UCLA’s Ad hoc Faculty Committee for Academic Integrity called on UCLA leadership to condemn the university’s Asian American Studies Department statement in July letters, and over 50 USC faculty members urged the university to rescind its support of the Palestinian Collective’s Statement in an Aug. 8 letter. The Academic Engagement Network, (AEN) an organization focused on stopping efforts to delegitimize Israel and promoting academic freedom and free speech on campus, condemned the Palestinian Feminist Collective’s statement in particular, calling it a “tactic of academic peer pressure” and citing concerns over the statement’s refusal to “recognize an over 100-year intractable conflict as ‘controversial or complex.’’ Syracuse Professor Miriam Elman said that on an academic level, the issue is bigger than just Israel. Elman, who is executive director of the Academic Engagement Network, voiced concerns about the academic freedoms of junior and contingent faculty who may worry about the professional costs of speaking about their views. “Departments misusing the name of the university for political purposes has to be something that the administration addresses, because today it’s about Israel but tomorrow it could be about another topic. It’s detrimental to the university mission and to the academy for this precedent to take hold,” Elman said. Cary Nelson, UIUC professor emeritus, served as president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the primary organization representing professors on issues of academic speech, from 2006 to 2012. The organization’s Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure establishes that teachers should, “at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.” According to Nelson, campuses are experiencing the opposite. He said departments’ willingness to publish statements will have free speech implications for years to come, and said he believes related discussions have become “more unpleasant and dishonest” for those with pro-Israel views. “It’s a terrible affront to the First Amendment,” Nelson said. “The principle that’s supposed to operate is that people deserve respect, but opinions don’t necessarily deserve respect. It’s important in academia that people feel open to debate with each other.” While the individual speech of professors is protected under the First Amendment and the Doctrine of Academic Freedom, law experts have raised concerns that this case of departmental speech at public universities will have significant effects on students and faculty. Brandeis Center founder and civil rights attorney Kenneth Marcus said departmental statements can worsen environments that are already hostile to Jewish students, especially those part of Gender and Women’s Studies or Ethnic Studies departments with progressive views who may feel increasingly alienated. “What we’re seeing now is a politicization of the university, in which students are taught not to think for themselves. They’re told instead that there’s only one acceptable viewpoint. This is not only a problem for Jewish students; it’s a problem for society as a whole,” Marcus said. “This is a division of the university and sometimes of the government telling faculty and students that it’s unacceptable to take a particular side in the debate.” Private universities, on the other hand, are not obligated to provide freedom of speech, but statutes like California’s Leonard law extends the First Amendment to private institutions in some states, and many institutions establish their own free speech policies. USC Chemistry Professor Hanna Resiler, a signatory of the Aug. 8 letter, said USC department statements fell out of line with the university’s free speech policies,, which state a commitment “to fostering a learning environment where free inquiry and expression are encouraged and celebrated and for which all its members share responsibility” and call disagreements “an integral aspect of expression in higher education.” “These statements betray the mission of the university as an environment of open inquiry, in which all people should feel comfortable raising controversial issues and examining them with open perspective,” Resiler said. “How can you teach in an environment like that?” Students feel the effects of polarization Ian Katsnelson lives aross the country from UCLA’s Levian, but shares her same fear about expressing Zionist views on campuses. Katsnelson, a UIUC Senior and IlliniPAC Israel advocacy co-president, described his three terms as a student senator, as a “stressful” atmosphere that didn’t take into consideration the opinions of Jews with Zionest beliefs when making statements on antisemitism or Israel. While he previously felt uncomfortable signing up for classes with certain professors he viewed to harbor antisemitic beliefs, he said he now doesn’t feel welcome taking classes in any of UIUC’s departments that made statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “When an entire department calls out a group on campus, whether that group be religious, ethnic or cultural, what it effectively does is say, ‘We don’t want you to be a part of our department, of our classes; I don’t want to be your professor,’” Katsnelson said. “Professors are here to educate and be supportive of the students at the university, and I feel like statements like that do exactly the opposite.” The general feeling is a sense of unwelcomeness for students still reeling from pushback toward Zionism on campus last year, such as the accusations that USC Student Vice President Rose Ritch’s support of Israel made her complicit in racism, eventually leading to her resignation from the position. At UIUC, repeated harassment from pro-Palestinian groups that pro-Israel students were “Nazis” and “white supremacists” contributed to Jewish students’ decison to file a class action lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Education. UCLA anti-Israel resolution reveals rift among students As a result, students have expressed concerns about their open expression on campuses. A recent Brandeis Center survey of Jewish fraternity and sorority members found that more than 80% of students were supportive of Israel, yet more than half of respondents said they avoided expressing their views on the state. What’s more, roughly three in 10 were concerned about facing penalties or marginalization from their professors. In light of these growing campus tensions, Hillel International president and chief executive officer Adam Lehman stressed the importance of educating about the complexity of the conflict on campuses. “We need to teach complexity. We need to show our campus communities that this is a complex issue, and neither side is 100% right or 100% wrong. And that we need to embrace the fact that students have a personal relationship and connection to Israel,” Lehman said. “Academic institutions need to provide a welcoming environment for all students, and to promote understanding, even when that understanding involves a difference of viewpoints.” The Palestine Feminist Collective and UCLA, USC and UIUC Students for Justice in Palestine chapters did not respond to The Forward’s requests for comment. Rachel Hale Rachel Hale is a news intern at the Forward. Email her at hale@forward.com or follow her on Twitter @Rachelhale32.
October’s Brandeis Brief! Brandeis Brief: October 2021 LDB continues to expose and respond to the endemic problem of anti-Semitism in higher education. In response to LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus’ latest essay in the Washington Post, the President of Johns Hopkins University finally acknowledged with appropriate forcefulness that JHU takes anti-Semitism seriously. Previously, in response to complaints by Jewish groups about a teaching assistant’s discriminatory and harassing threats towards Jewish students, JHU offered a vague statement condemning as anti-Semitic swastikas that had appeared on campus while failing to recognize or publicly condemn the anti-Semitism behind the TA’s tweets. Also this month, the Brandeis Center’s groundbreaking survey of openly Jewish college students reveals that large numbers of Jewish students are hiding their Jewish identity for fear of physical and verbal anti-Semitic attacks on campus. This Brief also covers the dangerous impact of the hateful ideology that lingers 20 years after the UN’s anti-Semitic World Conference Against Racism in Durban, an alarming new UN commission poised to falsely accuse Israel of apartheid, and a review of Dara Horn’s latest book by LDB’s newly minted Scholar-in-Residence. Johns Hopkins Must Live Up to Its Ideals Kenneth L. Marcus (The Washington Post) Read LDB Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus’ recent essay, which prompted the president of Johns Hopkins University to finally acknowledge with appropriate forcefulness that JHU takes anti-Semitism on its campus seriously. JHU’s initial feeble response to revelations that its teaching assistant made discriminatory and harassing threats towards Jewish students reveals the gap between the ideals of combatting discrimination and the reality that combatting anti-Semitism is often ignored or even resisted. Even now, JHU must do more to live up to its ideals, as Marcus explains. Read Marcus’ original Washington Post essay here Read JHU President Ronald Daniels’ response to Marcus’ essay here Read Marcus’ reply to Daniels here Survey of Jewish Fraternity and Sorority Finds Most Respondents Experienced Antisemitism on Campus Ben Sales (JTA) The groundbreaking Brandeis Center/Cohen Research Group survey of openly Jewish college students exposes the concerning rise in anti-Semitism that such students have experienced on campus. The survey reveals alarming statistics about the Jewish experience on campus: these students feel increasingly unsafe on campus and in virtual settings due to fears about physical and verbal anti-Semitic attacks, and this fear is driving them to hide their Jewish identity on campus. Read the article here Read the survey results here Read LDB’s press release here Listen to Kenneth Marcus’ interview on radio station WMAL here Everybody Hates the Jews Bari Weiss (Common Sense with Barri Weiss on Substack) Journalist Barry Weiss highlights the Brandeis Center’s recent survey about anti-Semitism on campus in her discussion about the worrisome rise of anti-Semitism in America stemming from all ideological spectrums. Weiss notes the virulent anti-Semitism that is becoming further entrenched in liberal institutions and calls on community advocates to muster the courage to speak up against this scourge. Read more here Definition of Antisemitism Adapts to new Political Strategies L. Rachel Lerman (Boston Herald) In her timely article coinciding with the anniversary of the notorious Durban Declaration, Brandeis Center Vice-Chair and Senior Counsel Rachel Lerman discusses how the virulent anti-Semitism of the first Durban conference in 2001 led to the development of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. Lerman explains why the IHRA definition is the only definition that properly encompasses all forms of contemporary anti-Semitism. Lerman also sits down with Dean Rea from the NightSide podcast and further discusses the lasting impact of the Durban conference and the importance of using the IHRA definition to combat the contemporary forms of anti-Semitism that manifest under the guise of anti-Israel rhetoric. Read the article here Listen to the podcast here We Must Call For an End to Durbanism Kenneth L. Marcus (JNS) Coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the UN’s World Conference Against Racism, LDB Chairman Kenneth Marcus recalls how the well-intended conference descended into virulent bigotry, targeting Jews with old and new forms of anti-Semitism, and inspired contemporary anti-racism movements. While celebrating the growing number of countries that rejected the hateful ideology disseminated by the Durban conference, Marcus calls on the international community to reject “Durbanism” and lean into the fight against racism with a genuine commitment to equal opportunity This article presents an abridged form of remarks delivered at the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust’s conference on Durban IV. Read the article here Watch Marcus’ presentation here Watch the entire conference, “Fight Racism, Not Jews: The United Nations and the Durban Deceit” here UKLFI Charitable Trust Webinar: “The Accusation of Israel as an Apartheid State” Brandeis Blog (Ben Usha) In response to a new UN commission poised to accuse the State of Israel of “apartheid” under an erroneous definition of the term, UKLFI Charitable Trust held a timely webinar featuring Arizona State Law Professor Orde Kittrie to debunk the apartheid claim against Israel. Professor Kittrie explains the definition of apartheid under international law, warns of the dangers of the commission’s designation of Israel as an “apartheid” nation, and recommends further action to combat the “apartheid” libel against Israel. Read the blog here Watch the webinar here In the News: Jews Safety On Campus (Jewish Broadcasting Service) Watch Kenneth Marcus’ interview with the Jewish Broadcasting Service in which he discusses LDB’s poll examining rates of anti-Semitism among openly Jewish college students as well as other developments in the ongoing effort to combat anti-Semitism in higher education. In the News: Jews’ Safety on Campus featuring Kenneth L. Marcus, October 4, 2021 (Jewish Broadcasting Service) LDB Appoints Diane Kunz as First Scholar-in-Residence Brandeis Blog (Chloe Shrager) The Brandeis Center is pleased to announce the inaugural appointment of Diane Kunz to the newly created role of Scholar-in-Residence. Dr. Kunz’s extensive scholarly experience will be a tremendous asset to the Center’s academic and policy work as well as our legal practice. LDB extends a warm welcome to Dr. Kunz! Read more here Dara Horn’s People Love Dead Jews – A Book Review by Diane Kunz Diane Kunz (Brandeis Blog) LDB’s new Scholar-in-Residence, Diane Kunz, reviews Dara Horn’s latest book, People Love Dead Jews – Reports from a Haunted Present. As Kunz explains, Horn points out disturbing ironies about the world’s seeming obsession with the Holocaust and “Holocaust education,” which demonstrate her thesis that “Dead Jews are fine – live Jews not so much.” Kunz also highlights the book’s discussion of contemporary forms of anti-Semitism in the United States, including leftist Jew-hatred and anti-Zionism, which have not received the attention they deserve and reveal an uncertain future for the Jewish American community. Read more here
New Website Allows Students to Report Anti-Semitic Incidents ~ By Maria Carrasco October 7, 2021 ~ A new online portal allows Jewish students and others to report anti-Semitic incidents and hate crimes on college campuses. The website, ReportCampusHate.org, was created by Hillel International, the Anti-Defamation League and the Secure Community Network, a safety and security initiative of the organized Jewish community, to empower Jewish students to address growing anti-Semitism on college campuses, the organizations said in a press release. Any incident reported through the website will be reviewed by a trained security professional who will work with law enforcement and the campus Hillel to file a report with the university, ensuring the proper tracking of anti-Semitic crimes. Additionally, students can be connected to wellness services, as well as tools and resources to help improve campus climates, the press release said. During the 2020-21 academic year, Hillel International tracked 244 anti-Semitic incidents on campuses, according to preliminary data, the press release states. In the 2019-20 academic year, when most classes were still taking place in person, there were 181 such incidents reported. A September poll by the Cohen Research Group, in conjunction with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, found that nearly 70 percent of openly Jewish students said they had personally experienced or “were familiar with” an act of anti-Semitism on campus or in a virtual campus setting in the past 120 days. As a result, about 50 percent said they have hidden their Jewish identities, and more than half have avoided expressing their views on Israel.
The Louis D. Brandeis Center Mourns the Passing of Neal M. Sher A Member of Our Legal Advisory Board The Louis D. Brandeis Center mourns the passing of long-time advisory board member Neal Sher, an active member of the LDB community and a prominent attorney who formerly headed the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Special Investigations and directed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Neal was with us from the beginning, not only as an honorary member but as an active advisor who was frequently a source of advice and support, especially during our early years. Neal was legendary as a Nazi prosecutor during his Justice Department days and charismatic as a leader of the pro-Israel community. Throughout his career, he was a fierce and passionate advocate for the Jewish people and a tireless enemy of Nazis, terrorists, and other anti-Semites. He understood before most that what is happening to Jewish college students today should be alarming to anyone who cares about justice. We will always remember Neal Sher, and his memory will inspire us to redouble our efforts to fight the evils that he battled throughout his distinguished career. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman Alyza D. Lewin, President Obituary Neal M. Sher AUGUST 29, 1947 – OCTOBER 3, 2021 Neal Sher, age 74, of New York, New York passed away on Sunday, October 3, 2021. Neal was born August 29, 1947. A funeral service for Neal will be held Friday, October 8, 2021 from 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM at Riverside Memorial Chapel, 180 West 76th Street, New York, NY 10023. Following the funeral service will be a committal service from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM at Mount Moriah Cemetery, 685 Fairview Ave, Fairnview, NJ 07022. Fond memories and expressions of sympathy may be shared at www.riversidememorialchapel.com or the SHER family.
Response to Ronald J. Daniels ~ We are pleased that, in response to my Sept. 30 essay, “Johns Hopkins must live up to its ideals,” JHU President Ronald J. Daniels has finally written with appropriate forcefulness that Johns Hopkins takes antisemitism seriously. Daniels’ Oct. 1 letter improves on the rote, vague denunciations of anti-Semitism and racism that JHU previously issued. Broad, bland, and generic public statements are ubiquitous and useless, while private letters are insufficient to address public harms. Unfortunately, Daniels fails even now to fully grasp JHU’s responsibilities. While privacy laws may restrict disclosures of internal disciplinary proceedings, they do not prevent JHU from addressing – and healing – the wounds that recent anti-Semitism has caused. As the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has noted, when “behavior implicates the civil rights laws, school administrators should look beyond simply [investigating and] disciplining the perpetrators.” Under federal civil rights law, the University must also take prompt and effective steps to eliminate any hostile environment and its effects. Even now, it appears that JHU is only concerned about whether instructors are deliberately downgrading Jewish students on their chemistry grades because of political grudges against Israel. While it is disgraceful that any instructor would publicly contemplate doing so, the bigger issue is the public taunting of JHU’s Jewish student body. A prompt, effective response to this Jew-baiting was never provided. Now that President Daniels is publicly addressing this matter, we expect that JHU will follow through on those commitments that he has at long last made. And we hope that JHU will address not only rights infractions but also the climate that they have affected. by Kenneth L. Marcus Founder and Chairman The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law
The Louis D. Brandeis Center Welcomes Diane Kunz as Scholar-in-Residence Washington, D.C., October 1, 2021: The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is pleased to announce the inaugural appointment of Diane Kunz to the newly created role of Scholar-in-Residence. Dr. Kunz is a distinguished historian and legal scholar who most recently served as Senior Lecturing Fellow at Duke University School of Law. The Brandeis Center’s readers will recall that Dr. Kunz has contributed timely and informative postings to the Brandeis Center blog. Indeed, she and her son Edward Kunz, also an historian, are the first mother-son duo to contribute to the Center’s blog; Edward, who was promoted to the position of Senior Communications and Development Intern during his time at LDB, wrote frequently for the Center’s publications. Kenneth Marcus comments: “We are thrilled to welcome Diane Kunz to the Brandeis Center as our very first Scholar-in-Residence. Her extensive scholarly experience as an author, historian, lawyer, and legal scholar will strengthen not only the Center’s academic and policy work, but also every facet of our legal practice, as well as our publications.” Alyza Lewin adds, “LDB’s academic work has always complimented our legal advocacy initiatives. Diane will be a tremendous asset to our scholarly research initiatives and a great resource for our law student chapters and fellows in combatting anti-Semitism on campuses nationwide. I am excited to see LDB’s relationship with Diane deepen through this role.” Dr. Kunz states: “I am honored to be the Louis D. Brandeis Center’s first Scholar-in-Residence. LDB is at the forefront of fighting the virulent contagion of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism that has permeated every part of American society in ways not seen for seven decades. In its work, LDB follows the insights of Justice Brandeis, who recognized that ‘the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding,’ and that to protect the civil rights of each citizen is to protect the rights of all citizens.” About Dr. Diane B. Kunz: Dr. Diane B. Kunz, Esq. is Executive Director of the Center for Adoption Policy, a 501 (c) 3 corporation that has become a pre-eminent legal and policy institute engaged in adoption and family creation issues. Dr. Kunz has consulted with government agencies such as the Department of State, the Centers for Disease Control and USCIS. Partnering with Duke University, New York Law School, and Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program, the Center, co-founded by Dr. Kunz and Ann N. Reese in 2001, has sponsored thirteen legal, academic and policy conferences on adoption and immigration issues. It was honored in 2008 by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute as an Angel in Adoption. She was one of the organizers of the successful effort to bring 1,150 children to the United States, who were in the process of being adopted, from Haiti to the United States in the wake of the 2010 earthquake and a drafter of the Help Haiti Act of 2010 which gave these children a path to U.S. citizenship. From 1976 to 1983 Dr. Kunz practiced corporate law with the firms of White & Case and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (Harlan Fiske Scholar, Columbia University, 1975-1976, Cornell University, J.D. 1973-1975). In 1983, she began graduate studies in diplomatic, economic and legal history at Oxford University (M. Litt. 1986) and Yale University (Ph.D., 1989). From 1988 until 1998 she was Assistant, then Associate Professor of History at Yale University. While at Yale she wrote extensively on twentieth century international history, and U.S. relations with the Middle East, including the prize winning book, The Economic Diplomacy of the Suez Crisis. From 1998-2001 she taught history and international relations at Columbia University. From 2015-2017, she was a consultant to the Academic Engagement Network, whose mission is to counter antisemitism and oppose efforts to delegitimize Israel. Dr. Kunz served as Senior Faculty Fellow at Duke Law School from 2017 – 2021. She is an honorary fellow of the American Academy of Adoption and Reproductive Technology Attorneys. Dr. Kunz is working on a transnational history of international adoption which is under contract with UNC Press. She is also the mother of eight children, four of whom were born in China through the non-special needs and waiting children programs.L
The Washington Post ~ Opinion by Kenneth L. Marcus (September 30, 2021 at 3:22 p.m. EDT) Johns Hopkins University recently extended the record-breaking tenure of its longest-serving president, Ronald J. Daniels. Under Daniels, Johns Hopkins has prospered, buoyed by the landmark $1.8 billion gift from alumnus Mike Bloomberg. As important, under Daniels, the university has hued to high ideals, recognizing its obligation to address equity. Now the question is whether the university, under Daniels’s extended leadership, will live up to those ideals. Last year, recognizing “a moment of national reckoning,” Daniels announced that Johns Hopkins is “faced with both an imperative and an opportunity to act” when confronted with discrimination. Bold and righteous words. They were brought to a test just a few months later when a Hopkins teaching assistant, Rasha Anayah, conducted a survey about her chemistry students. Anayah tweeted this question, which she called an “ethical dilemma”: “if you have to grade a zionist students [sic] exam, do you still give them all their points even though they support your ethnic cleansing[?]” She gave two options: “yes rasha be a good ta” or “free palestine! fail them!” In case anyone failed to grasp the correct answer, she placed the latter response in boldface. Nearly 80 percent of respondents urged her to fail the Zionist students. Emboldened, Anayah continued to tweet additional antisemitic rants, including “[w]e had an undergrad in lab who had been on [B]irthright [a program that sends young Jewish people to Israel] and had one of the street signs to tel aviv on her laptop … [I]f [I] had been paired with one of them or one of these conceited white boys [I] would have lost it.” In response to this effort to turn the university community against its Jewish students, Hopkins neglected what might be called, to borrow from Daniels, the “imperative and an opportunity to act.” Though Daniels has boldly responded to other acts of hate, the university kept silent when its teaching assistant expressed contempt for her Jewish students, threatened to grade them unfairly and fomented hatred of their commitment to Israel. Indeed, more than six months after Anayah’s question and with students now returning to classrooms, the university has yet to condemn publicly any of the conduct, citing privacy laws. Though it may be appropriate to maintain privacy of certain personnel investigations, this does not excuse the university from condemning antisemitism just as “unequivocally and in the strongest possible terms” as Daniels has used for other forms of bigotry. Johns Hopkins’s failure reflects a national trend. Earlier this month, a Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law/Cohen Research Group poll showed that two-thirds of Jewish fraternity students had felt unsafe on their campuses last semester, even before the Gaza conflict spurred increased anti-Jewish harassment. Since the Gaza conflict, antisemitism has flared worldwide, with numerous horrifying and violent acts right here on U.S. soil. In only one week during that period, the Anti-Defamation League identified 17,000 tweets which used variations of the phrase “Hitler was right.” That same month, a group waving a Palestinian flag assaulted diners seated outside a Los Angeles restaurant after asking if they were Jewish. Two days later, in New York, a gang of assailants punched, kicked and pepper-sprayed a young man wearing a skullcap. And a rabbi was stabbed in Boston on the steps of a Jewish school. This might feel like a new phenomenon for the U.S. streets, but U.S. college campuses have long played host to some of the most pervasive antisemitism. Unfortunately, university administrators are often reluctant to address antisemitism explicitly. At Rutgers, the chancellor responded to the egging of a Jewish fraternity house with a tepid statement opposing antisemitism along with other forms of prejudice. When pro-Palestinian activists complained, the chancellor apologized and removed the statement from the university’s website. The problem has spread beyond the campus. Recently, the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators (SCBWI) published a condemnation of antisemitism: “The SCBWI unequivocally recognizes that the world’s 14.7 million Jewish people (less than 0.018% of the population) have the right to life, safety, and freedom from scapegoating and fear.” That proved so controversial the society’s executive director apologized “to everyone in the Palestinian community” for the statement. The society’s diversity chief, a black Jewish woman, had to resign, but not before delivering her own apology. This is madness. When bigotry is public, the consequences must be public — and unapologetic. By remaining silent, Johns Hopkins University allows a hostile environment to fester. Worse, it fails to ensure that such conduct does not recur. For institutions to turn the corner, they must exercise prompt and effective leadership. This means condemning antisemitism and every form of bigotry. Leaders might take a lesson from President Biden, for example, who has boldly excoriated the rise of antisemitism, saying, “These attacks are despicable, unconscionable, un-American, and they must stop.” As students return to campuses across the country this fall, Daniel and all leaders must also be bold and specific in condemning antisemitism and taking public steps to prevent its recurrence. Though it may be too late for Daniels to be prompt, it is not too late to be effective. Daniels is now gathering comments on a set of draft recommendations that will lay the foundation for the university’s next “road map” on diversity and inclusion. At a minimum, the road map should explicitly address antisemitism, providing definitions, standards, and policies. Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. He was assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for civil rights from 2018 to 2020 and is the author of “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.”
Creators.com With a new academic year underway, Jewish college students across America are in receipt of yet more empirical evidence that the anxiety they are experiencing is not a figment of their imaginations. A poll released last week by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law found that more than 65% of Jewish college kids have felt unsafe on campus because of verbal, social media or physical attacks. Approximately 50% find it necessary to hide their Jewish identity. Almost 70% either personally experienced some form of anti-Jewish assault in the recent past or were familiar with one. These findings, said Kenneth Marcus, the former assistant secretary of education for civil rights who chairs the Center, “reveal that students for whom being Jewish is a central or important aspect of their identity are feeling increasingly unsafe visibly expressing their Judaism for fear of harassment, social bullying and other anti-Semitic attacks.” This, says Marcus, “is driving more and more students to hide their support for Israel.” This is exactly what is intended by those leading the harassment campaign, who hope that by making pro-Israel kids afraid they will make them silent. Some who wouldn’t be caught dead declaring war on non-Jews’ civil rights do so enthusiastically when it comes to kids who identify as Jewish and who care about the Jewish state. Bari Weiss summarized the current vogue perfectly. “Bullying in theory is wrong,” she wrote of the fashion on the left. “The bullying of the right people is not just okay. It is a virtue.” In the Middle East, the normalizing of relations between Israel and her Arab neighbors has accelerated with last year’s Abraham Accords. The exchange of diplomatic credentials and news of increased trade between Israel and Arab countries seems like a weekly affair. A new and historically diverse Israeli government is taking pains to revive the outreach to Palestinians characteristic of the pre-Netanyahu era. But on American college campuses, the efforts by the anti-Israel lobby to overwhelm Jewish students with cries of “Nazi” and “apartheid” and “white privilege” are not only persisting but intensifying. The boycott, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, movement, whose purpose is to render Israel and the Jews who care about her pariahs, is the vehicle, and it features untethered rhetoric which more than makes up in intimidation what it frequently lacks in intellectual honesty. The Brandeis Center’s new poll arrived the same week as a flare-up in Congress over funding for Iron Dome, the purely defensive antimissile system on which Israel relies to try to intercept the thousands of Hamas rockets targeting Israeli civilians that the Gaza-based terrorist group launches every few years. In May, Hamas fired about 4,500 of them, which depleted the Israeli capacity to fend them off. Mensa-level genius is not required to discern that Iron Dome saves Jewish, Christian and Muslim lives in Israel; without it, Israel would be defenseless, and that is how a tiny handful in Congress, half consisting of the group of congresswomen known as “The Squad”, would like to have it. The system also saves the lives of Gazans; if Israelis have to conduct air strikes against Hamas rocketeers to stop them, innocent Palestinians will get hurt or killed, and that is how Hamas, for its part, would like to have it. The anti-Israel crowd flopped badly in opposing funding for Iron Dome, mustering only nine votes in Congress in opposition, with 420 votes in favor. This followed what was for them a discouraging summer, in which the cities of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Burlington, Vermont, rejected BDS measures. If Cambridge and Burlington are not buying BDS, it is not clear who is. But for Jewish students hoping simply to navigate their college years free of venom and scorn, these positive developments offer minuscule comfort. They have lives to live. The trouble is that there are others who, managing to believe when they look in the mirror that they are bona fide progressives, are attempting to make those lives as difficult as possible. Jeff Robbins, a former assistant United States attorney and United States delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, was chief counsel for the minority of the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. An attorney specializing in the First Amendment, he is a longtime columnist for the Boston Herald, writing on politics, national security, human rights and the Mideast.
JNS ~ Kenneth L. Marcus – September 20, 2021 ~ (September 20, 2021 / JNS) The United Nations will hold a major international convening on Sept. 22 to mark the 20th anniversary of its World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa in 2001. In many ways, that conference has marked us more than we mark it. For supporters, it was an epoch-making event: an awakening about racism for a world then not yet “woke.” At the same time, it was what we might now call a super-spreader event, causing a new anti-Zionist variant of the world’s oldest hatred to go viral. This month, as we observe this anniversary of the worst post-Holocaust international manifestation of anti-Semitism, we must pledge an end not only to Durban but to the hate-filled worldview that it represents. This year, the United States and some 15 of its allies will boycott this month’s high-level commemorative meeting, known as Durban IV, because of the anti-Semitism associated with the initial conference. Durban provided a platform for inflammatory speeches such as PLO leader Yasser Arafat’s accusations of the “ugliness” of “Israeli racist policies and practices against the Palestinian people.” At a parallel, U.N.-sponsored forum for non-governmental organizations, one placard read “Hitler Should Have Finished the Job.” Nearby, copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a classic anti-Semitic hoax, were available for sale. Activists distributed flyers with caricatures of Jews with hooked noses and fangs dripping with blood, clutching money. In light of this history, it is not enough to praise the countries that will boycott Durban IV nor to oppose the many more that apparently still plan to participate. Beyond that, we must face the reality that the United Nations has found it necessary to stage yet another major international event to commemorate this grand global travesty. To do that, we must understand why so many still support Durban despite its ugly legacy. For those who celebrate Durban, that conference laid the foundation for the world to accept—and to believe—that systemic racism lies at the core of our global system. Over the last two decades, this worldview has taken hold internationally, nowhere more than in the United States. For many, Durban represents the war on a global system of white supremacy. It also reflects the growing worldview that capitalism is unsustainable, as is the global influence of the United States. These understandings are reflected in Critical Race Theory, the Black Lives Matter movement, and a host of government, corporate and educational programs. Too often, these programs adopt not only Durban’s commendable opposition to racism but also its tragic descent into bigotry. This can be seen, for example, in cases where university training sessions have separated employees by race, treating Jews and whites as privileged oppressors and teaching other groups to view them in stereotypical terms. In California, supporters of a first-draft Ethnic Studies Curriculum would promote the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel and omit lesson plans about anti-Semitism. For those who are committed to ending racism, this new anti-racism is a diversion from the real, hard work of civil-rights enforcement. Instead of identifying actual instances of discrimination—where people are treated worse because of their race or other group identity—the Durbanist approach is to overhaul our social order, dividing people by their perceived status as oppressor or oppressed. This feeds into racial stereotypes, with Jews viewed in anti-Semitic terms as privileged, powerful, conspiratorial and controlling. There is good news. The 16 countries that will boycott this month’s Durban IV commemoration reflect an increase over the 14 that skipped Durban III, or the 10 that pulled out of Durban II. But we must do more than pull out of Durban. We must pull out of Durbanism. That is to say, we must extirpate the hate that Durban has spread—not only in our international institutions, but also in our schools, our campuses and our workplaces. Fortunately, the pullout from Durban reflects a growing global awareness of the need to respond forcefully to the spreading hate of global anti-Semitism. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism has now been adopted by 30 nations, many within the last couple of years. There is no more important step that institutions can take than to adopt this important definition, which strikes a blow against global anti-Semitism. Beyond that, we must seek out and eliminate Durbanism wherever it arises, replacing it with a genuine commitment to equal opportunity. Instead of dividing people by race, we must unite. Instead of using racism as a pretext to pursue extreme ideological agendas, we must return to the hard work of fighting discrimination wherever it arises, including in “anti-racist” programs that are purportedly designed to prevent it. While pulling out of Durban, we must pull into the fight against racism. Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. He served previously as U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (2018-2020), and he is the author of “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.” This article presents an abridged form of remarks delivered at the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust’s conference on Durban IV.
JTA BY BEN SALES SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 5:59 PM — A survey of members of AEPi and AEPhi, the most prominent national Jewish fraternity and sorority, found that large numbers of respondents have experienced antisemitism on campus. The survey also found that about half of respondents have felt the need to hide their Jewish identity on campus or in virtual campus settings. A slim majority said they “are somewhat or very reluctant to share their views on Israel,” according to the survey. The survey was commissioned by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a legal organization that aids Jewish and pro-Israel college students. It was conducted by Mike Cohen of the Cohen Research Group in Washington, D.C. The survey was conducted last April, before the spike in antisemitism in the United States surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict the following month. The survey was made available to all AEPi and AEPhi members nationally, and 1,027 chose to respond — 710 of the 5,158 AEPi students and 317 of 3,310 AEPhi students. It is unclear how representative the respondents are of AEPi and AEPhi as a whole, though Cohen said it was an unusually high response rate. The survey comes amid concern among Jewish organizations, and Jewish campus activists, about marginalization and harassment of Jews on campus. National Jewish groups have long seen college campuses, and particularly the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on campus, as a front in the fight against anti-Jewish bigotry. In the past year, Jewish student activists have organized themselves to fight anti-Zionism and antisemitism online. Those concerns have reached the highest levels of government. Kenneth Marcus, the founder of the Brandeis Center, served as assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights under President Donald Trump. In 2019, Trump signed an executive order mandating “robust” enforcement of civil rights protections for Jews on campus, which included some anti-Israel activity in the definition of antisemitism. The order prompted a series of federal complaints alleging antisemitism at campuses in the U.S., some of which were filed by the Brandeis Center. The survey found that half of AEPi respondents, and two-thirds of AEPhi respondents, had personally been targeted with an antisemitic comment in the 120 days before the survey was taken. Cohen said the higher number of sorority members who experienced antisemitism was due partially to their having been called gendered terms such as “Jewish American Princess.” Roughly a quarter of each group said they heard offensive jokes about Jews. A slightly lower number said they heard people repeat age-old antisemitic stereotypes about Jews being greedy or cheap. Smaller percentages reported hearing offensive statements about Israel, like comparing Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis. More than 60% of students in AEPi and AEPhi said that at some point, they have felt unsafe as Jews on campus or in virtual campus settings. Most of both groups said they’re worried about verbal attacks, and about a third of each group said they’re worried about online harassment or being “marginalized or penalized” by a professor, according to the survey. About one in six respondents feared a physical attack. The survey found that more than 80% of both groups consider other Jews their extended family and are supportive of Israel. A majority of respondents has been to Israel. “These findings ring some pretty consequential alarms, more closely resembling previous dark periods in our history, not the 21st century in the U.S.,” Marcus said in a statement. “They reveal that students for whom being Jewish is a central or important aspect of their identity are feeling increasingly unsafe visibly expressing their Judaism for fear of harassment, social bullying and other anti-Semitic attacks.
— A survey of members of AEPi and AEPhi, the most prominent national Jewish fraternity and sorority, found that large numbers of respondents have experienced antisemitism on campus. The survey also found that about half of respondents have felt the need to hide their Jewish identity on campus or in virtual campus settings. A slim majority said they “are somewhat or very reluctant to share their views on Israel,” according to the survey. The survey was commissioned by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a legal organization that aids Jewish and pro-Israel college students. It was conducted by Mike Cohen of the Cohen Research Group in Washington, D.C. The survey was conducted last April, before the spike in antisemitism in the United States surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict the following month. The survey was made available to all AEPi and AEPhi members nationally, and 1,027 chose to respond — 710 of the 5,158 AEPi students and 317 of 3,310 AEPhi students. It is unclear how representative the respondents are of AEPi and AEPhi as a whole, though Cohen said it was an unusually high response rate. The survey comes amid concern among Jewish organizations, and Jewish campus activists, about marginalization and harassment of Jews on campus. National Jewish groups have long seen college campuses, and particularly the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on campus, as a front in the fight against anti-Jewish bigotry. In the past year, Jewish student activists have organized themselves to fight anti-Zionism and antisemitism online. Those concerns have reached the highest levels of government. Kenneth Marcus, the founder of the Brandeis Center, served as assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights under President Donald Trump. In 2019, Trump signed an executive order mandating “robust” enforcement of civil rights protections for Jews on campus, which included some anti-Israel activity in the definition of antisemitism. The order prompted a series of federal complaints alleging antisemitism at campuses in the U.S., some of which were filed by the Brandeis Center. The survey found that half of AEPi respondents, and two-thirds of AEPhi respondents, had personally been targeted with an antisemitic comment in the 120 days before the survey was taken. Cohen said the higher number of sorority members who experienced antisemitism was due partially to their having been called gendered terms such as “Jewish American Princess.” Roughly a quarter of each group said they heard offensive jokes about Jews. A slightly lower number said they heard people repeat age-old antisemitic stereotypes about Jews being greedy or cheap. Smaller percentages reported hearing offensive statements about Israel, like comparing Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis. More than 60% of students in AEPi and AEPhi said that at some point, they have felt unsafe as Jews on campus or in virtual campus settings. Most of both groups said they’re worried about verbal attacks, and about a third of each group said they’re worried about online harassment or being “marginalized or penalized” by a professor, according to the survey. About one in six respondents feared a physical attack. The survey found that more than 80% of both groups consider other Jews their extended family and are supportive of Israel. A majority of respondents has been to Israel. “These findings ring some pretty consequential alarms, more closely resembling previous dark periods in our history, not the 21st century in the U.S.,” Marcus said in a statement. “They reveal that students for whom being Jewish is a central or important aspect of their identity are feeling increasingly unsafe visibly expressing their Judaism for fear of harassment, social bullying and other anti-Semitic attacks.