The Brandeis Center hosted legal scholars, attorneys, and law student leaders together at the Beren Law Student Leadership Conference August 15-16, 2023. The conference explored the key civil and human rights issues impacting Jewish Americans today on college and university campuses and in workplaces. 

The conference honored the late Robert M. Beren, whose generous support made the conference possible and free for all law students. Robert passed away on August 8, and his son, Adam Beren, virtually met with conference attendees to honor his father’s memory. Robert was a staunch advocate for the Jewish community, and Adam spoke to how his father inspired him and the rest of his family to continue his legacy. In relation to the conference, Adam shared that his father “would be so proud of this group you’ve gathered here.”

“They’re ready to take the mantle. I know that was important to my father, to be able to pass on the legacy and traditions and importance that he placed on Judaism,” Adam said.

The law students in attendance represented 14 schools, including Columbia, NYU, Georgetown, George Washington, Cardozo, and others. Through a series of lectures, panels, and networking events, students engaged with prominent Jewish civil rights advocates and legal professionals about civil rights issues facing the Jewish community. Panelists discussed the definition of anti-Semitism, the presentation of contemporary anti-Semitism, and the legal strategies available to effectively counteract and combat anti-Semitism. Students left the conference with bolstered knowledge of how to use their legal education to fight against anti-Semitism and protect the rights of the Jewish community.

The conference opened with an introduction from Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus, who discussed that he has seen an increase in anti-Semitism over the course of his government career, which inspired him to found the Brandeis Center and fight to protect Jewish students against anti-Semitism through his work in the Department of Education. Next, LDB President Alyza D. Lewin shared her experience as a legal advocate for Jewish civil rights.

“There are Jews today that are being targeted, not on the basis of their religious practice, but on the basis of our identity as a people, our history, our heritage, and the Jewish people’s deep historic, ancestral, and ethnic connection to the land of Israel,” Lewin declared.

Marcus, Professor Avi Bell of San Diego State University and Bar Ilan University, and Anna Lelonek, a law student and Brandeis Center chapter leader at Cardozo School of Law, then discussed the goals and impact of the LDB chapter initiative on law school campuses. Launched in 2014, LDB law student chapters offer educational programming about legal issues relating to Jewish civil rights. The panelists discussed how these chapters fill an important gap in American legal education, and how the Brandeis Center works with student chapters to provide opportunities and resources for Jewish civil rights advocacy on campus. 

In the next panel, Nathan Lewin, a partner at Lewin & Lewin LLP, and Professor Michael Avi Helfand, a Brenden Mann Foundation Chair in Law and.Religion at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law and Visiting Professor at Yale Law School, discussed how to use the law to protect religious liberty. Lewin has argued 28 cases in front of the Supreme Court, several of them involving religious liberty for Jewish people. He and Helfand discussed the legal protections for freedom of religious practice, and the scope of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause in cases involving Jewish rights. They also stressed that there are different avenues to fight for Jewish civil rights — both the judicial and legislative spheres.

“The way law works is you have more than one track. What you can’t necessarily accomplish in court, sometimes what happens in the court allows you to then push legislative initiatives and vice versa,” Helfand said.

Brandeis Center General Counsel L. Rachel Lerman, Potomac Law Group Partner Marci Lerner Miller, and LDB Staff Attorney Deena Margolies then discussed the anti-Semitic implementation of the ethnic studies curriculum in California schools. Although the curriculum is intended to teach students about underrepresented groups who may otherwise not be portrayed in existing courses, Lerman and Miller stressed that individual school districts have eschewed the original mission of the curriculum by illegally including anti-Semitic content and sources.

“The school has rules. The school district itself has rules about controversial topics: they need to be fact-based, they need to show both sides, and they need to not be biased against anyone in particular. But the rules are not being followed any more than the law is being followed,” Lerman stated.

The following day, B’nai B’rith International Director of Legislative Affairs, Rabbi Eric Fusfield, National Jewish Advocacy Center CEO and Director, Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder, and StandWithUs Center for Combating Antisemitism Director Carly Gammill spoke on a panel about how to understand and define anti-Semitism. Panelists emphasized the importance of defining anti-Semitism in countering widespread lack of awareness. Panelists referenced the recently released U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which endorsed the IHRA Definition of anti-Semitism, but also wrote that it “welcomes and appreciates the Nexus Document and notes other such efforts.” Panelists expressed unequivocal and exclusive support for the IHRA Definition.

“The responsibility to combat anti-Semitism falls on all of us, and one of the most indispensable tools in this challenge is a commonly-accepted definition such as the IHRA Working Definition, which spotlights anti-Semitism in all of its manifestations, and allows us to call out the problem whenever it occurs,” said Fusfield.

Professor Bell and LDB Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi then spoke about how to understand and interpret international law as it relates to the Palestine/Israel conflict. Traldi gave an overview of international law, and Bell spoke about how common public misconceptions about international law can create dangerous narratives surrounding Israel’s perceived war crimes and human rights violations. 

Hillel International Vice President Mark Rotenberg then delivered a presentation on the First Amendment and Principles of Academic Freedom. He delved into the historical evolution of academic freedom, tracing its origins from the medieval period to its adaptation in American higher education. He highlighted contemporary challenges that students, teachers, and universities face when navigating academic freedom and the right to free speech, particularly when cases of anti-Semitism arise. Rotenberg pointed to real-life examples from higher education, asking attendees to offer solutions that respect academic freedom and the right to free speech.

A panel consisting of LDB Director of Corporate Initiatives and Senior Counsel Rory Lancman, Duane Morris LLP Partner Jonathan Segal, K&L Gates Partner and former director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Craig Leen, and Marci Lerner-Miller engaged in a discussion on workplace anti-Semitism. They said that anti-Semitism in the workplace is on the rise, and they highlighted the routine denial of accommodations to Jewish employees. Another significant challenge discussed was the often-limited understanding of Jewish identity by Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices. Amidst these concerns, the panel provided practical insights, including ways to constructively critique employee practices and effectively advocate for the rights of Jewish employees.

On the evening of August 16, ADL Senior Director, National Litigation Pasch, GS2Law Chairman and American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists President Rob Garson, Gibson Dunn Partner Akiva Shapiro, and Virginia Attorney General Anti-Semitism Task Force Member Joel Taubman presented on making fighting anti-Semitism part of your practice. Pasch shared that “whether you’re in a Jewish agency, small firm, or a large firm, there are avenues for you to make fighting anti-Semitism part of your practice.” Garson suggested that one way to combat anti-Semitism in the workplace is to remain connected to your Jewish identity despite pressures to conform, saying “don’t compromise your own principles for your job.”

The keynote speaker, Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, spoke on how the perpetuation of left-wing anti-Semitism on college campuses is creating a hostile environment for Jewish students. Mukasey also spoke about how some individuals and organizations who fund the rise of left-wing anti-Semitism are oftentimes directly connected to terrorist organizations. However, despite the dire circumstances, he concluded his speech with hope that the next generation of law students will be able to continue the fight against rising anti-Semitism.

“The skills that you bring to bear and will bring to bear as lawyers — analyzing facts, making critical distinctions, and drawing reasonable conclusions — are going to be critical to giving Jewish students the tools they need to beat back the strain of anti-Semitism that currently infects U.S. college campuses.” The following day, LDB hosted training for its JIGSAW Fellows for the upcoming year. The JIGSAW Initiative trains law students to work with and advise undergraduates in combating anti-Semitism on campus.

Author: Arielle Feuerstein

The Brandeis Center hosted a webinar last month entitled ‘Holocaust Denial and Erasive anti-Semitism.’ The webinar is part of the Brandeis Center’s support for the Shine a Light campaign and was hosted on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
.  

Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus and President Alyza D. Lewin served as moderators. Marcus and Lewin were joined by three distinguished panelists, including Yfat Barak-Cheney, Ben Freeman, and Arthur Traldi.
.    

Barak-Cheney, the World Jewish Congress’ Director of International Affairs and Human Rights, began the webinar by defining Holocaust denial and distortion with reference to the IHRA definition. Cheney said, “Holocaust denial refers to discourse or propaganda that deny the historical reality as well as the extent and intentionality of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and accomplices during World War II.” In contrast, “distortion is not denying that the Nazi’s sought to murder the Jews of Europe, but still significantly and purposively misrepresenting the historical record.”
.    

Barak-Cheney leads WJC’s efforts on combating online hate and described how Holocaust denial and distortion are not a new problem – but they are growing in prevalence with the rise of social media. She noted that according to a recent UNESCO report, 16.4% of all Holocaust information across popular platforms is Holocaust denial, and on some platforms, such as Telegram, 50% of Holocaust information is denial and distortion. “With the online world being so welcome to such ideas, we’ll soon just not be able to separate truth from lies,” said Barak-Cheney. “We will not be able to claim established narratives, and we will face the erasure of Holocaust history, and with it, a significant part of our ability to prevent genocide in the future.”
.   

Freeman, the author of Reclaiming Our Story: The Pursuit of Jewish Pride, spoke next and categorized Holocaust denial and distortion as forms of erasive anti-Semitism and erasive Jew hatred, two terms he coined. He defined these terms as taking two forms: the erasure of Jewish identity and experience and the erasure of Jews as victims of prejudice. This erasure serves to rewrite Jewish history, erase the minority status of Jews, and undermine their need for protection and allyship. 

.   

Freeman asserts that erasive anti-Semitism is a danger to the Jewish people and a danger to the ability of the wider world to understand the Jewish people. “We cannot allow the Jewish story to be told by others, we cannot allow our story to be rewritten, with specific reference to the Holocaust, because what a horrendous insult to the six million Jewish souls who were stolen from us,” said Freeman. “It is our duty to honor them as best we can by retelling their stories.”
.   

Brandeis Center Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi described ways in which erasure shows up in legal settings. He identified three examples of erasure in federal hate crimes law: two months ago when the FBI dramatically underreported anti-Semitic hate crimes, which the Brandeis Center called on the FBI to correct; last year when the FBI claimed that the Colleyville synagogue hostage taking had “nothing to do with the Jewish community”; and in university’s legally mandated hate crime reporting, where anti-Semitic hate crimes have been underreported. 

.   

Traldi also described the ways in which erasive anti-Semitism shows up on university campuses, an area in which the Brandeis Center specializes. “At a time of rising levels of anti-Semitism on campus, Jewish students are told their identities and targeting don’t count or aren’t important enough to be included in what is ironically called inclusion programing.” 

.   

Traldi referenced the Brandeis Center’s complaint against Stanford University in 2021, which came in response to the DEI program’s refusal to recognize or address anti-Semitic hostility on campus. The complaint also detailed the program’s decision to exclude anti-Semitism from its DEI curriculum and initiatives and attempts to silence and intimidate Jews who challenged its decisions. 

.   

The webinar ended with an opportunity for audience members to ask questions, largely focused on how both Jews and non-Jews can combat erasive anti-Semitism on university campuses and beyond. Panelists and moderators agreed that the best way to combat erasive anti-Semitism is through education. Jews can contribute to this effort by continuing to share their identity and experience and non-Jews can help by listening and creating space for Jewish voices to be heard. 

The Brandeis Center hosted a webinar earlier this month entitled “Religious Accommodations in the Corporate Workplace.” Panelists discussed the history of religious inclusion in America, the laws used to protect religious inclusions in the workplace, and the current trend of such laws among U.S. regulators and courts. 

.

Hon. Andrea R. Lucas, Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, served as moderator. The panelists included Freedom Forum Fellow for Religious Freedom Richard Foltin, Anti-Defamation League Director of Regional Operations Etzion Neuer, and Brandeis Center Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi. 

.

After a brief introduction, Richard Foltin gave background on the legal history of religious accommodations mandated in the United States. Religious inclusion is deep-rooted in the values of America, and workplace protection for this is expressed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Despite this, there have been setbacks in the past. Foltin discussed the language of the applicable legislation; employers are required to grant their employees ‘reasonable accommodation,’ so they can observe their religion as long as it does not cause any ‘undue hardship’ on the business.

.

What exactly, then, is a ‘reasonable accommodation?’ Foltin suggests that one example is an accommodation that removes the conflict entirely, such as adjusting the work calendar or granting the employee paid time off. Still, employers could then say that this causes ‘undue hardship’ on the business, and, without solid legal representation, this could force employees to choose between their jobs and their faith. This has been the sad truth for many employees, as efforts to make the law stronger in protecting employees’ religious freedoms have been met with pushback in the past. 

.

ADL Director of Regional Operations Etzion Neuer gave a non-legal perspective of how these rules apply to real life. He mentioned that ADL has seen a “dramatic increase” in reports they receive regarding the mishandling of religious accommodations in the workplace. To combat this, ADL trains staffs, appeals to companies, and works for equity. Neuer says that there is reason to be optimistic, as accommodating religions is becoming a “business imperative,” meaning it can no longer be overlooked if businesses want to survive. 

. 

The final panelist was Brandeis Center Senior Counsel Arthur Traldi. He provided insights on the direction the law is currently going, citing specific examples that echoed Neuer’s feelings of optimism. For instance, in 2015, the Supreme Court heard a case about a Muslim woman denied a job at Abercrombie & Fitch, because she refused not to wear her head covering at work. SCOTUS ruled in her favor, declaring that Title VII means the company cannot refuse to hire because of religious practices. Traldi said the fact that the court ruled against corporate dress codes for an apparel retailer set the bar very high for claiming ‘undue hardship.’ 

.

Beyond that, new EEOC guidance gives specific examples illustrating when accommodations. This is important, because it gives employers clear direction on when they can and cannot claim undue hardship is being imposed on their business. These hardships must be clearly ascertainable and concrete, not based on anticipation. Thanks to cases and guidance like these, Traldi believes that the legal landscape is continually moving in the direction of increased protection for workplace religious accommodations. 

.

All of this relates to the Shine A Light Campaign against anti-Semitism, of which the Brandeis Center is proud to be a part. This initiative seeks to spotlight modern anti-Semitism and fight to end it through education. Webinars like the one we recently hosted are a fantastic resource that students, employees, and employers can use to help move the needle in the right direction in the battle against all forms of discrimination. 

.

To watch the webinar, click here. 

.

To learn more, read our fact sheet.