Published 7/16/24 by Law360; Story by Jake Maher

Jewish organizations suing the University of California, Berkeley, and its law school for allegedly tolerating an antisemitic culture on campus fought to keep their suit alive this week in the face of a motion to dismiss, maintaining their claims are ripe despite UC Berkeley’s “bold misreading” of the case.

UC Berkeley argued in June that the case should be tossed because the university had not had time to internally address some of the incidents cited as evidence of antisemitism in the suit, such as a tent encampment and the blockade of a gate on campus protesting Israel’s military efforts in Gaza.

But the Jewish organizations told a California federal court in an opposition brief Monday that Jewish students have long faced a “constant drumbeat” of connected hostile incidents that the school has failed to effectively address.

“Defendants paint the suit as one alleging a series of discrete incidents. Wrong — it is a suit alleging defendants’ failure to respond in any meaningful way to a longstanding hostile environment,” the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education wrote in their opposition brief.

“They got the facts and the law wrong,” added L. Rachel Lerman, general counsel for the Brandeis Center, in a Tuesday interview with Law360 Pulse.

She said that, assuming all facts in the complaint are true, it is “abundantly clear” that the plaintiffs have stated a claim and that UC Berkeley is “mistaken” in its ripeness argument: The situation at UC Berkeley is continuing to get worse, with issues possibly on the horizon in the new school year, Lerman said, so the court cannot give the school even more time to pursue its ineffective strategies.

Lerman pointed to comments made by University of California President Michael Drake in November 2023 stating that students have faced “outright violence.”

“Usually you would expect an immediate response at that point,” Lerman said.

In court papers, the plaintiffs also pushed back on UC Berkeley’s argument that handling the dispute in court would restrict free speech and effectively put the court in charge of administrative functions on campus. Antisemitic speech is not legally protected, the plaintiffs countered, and they are not demanding specific remedies but rather for the court to make UC Berkeley live up to its own antidiscrimination policies.

“While the law protects universities from judicial interference with campus administration by allowing the university to select the means to curtail a hostile environment, it does not permit universities to select responses that are demonstrably ineffective,” the plaintiffs wrote in Monday’s opposition brief. The plaintiffs’ original complaint from November accused UC Berkeley of fostering the “long-standing, unchecked spread of antisemitism” by allowing student groups to use their bylaws to ban those who hold Zionist views — which they argued violates the U.S. Constitution and federal anti-discrimination laws.

The plaintiff groups amended their complaint in May to include claims stemming from more recent events on campus, including a blockade of Sather Gate and what they described as a riot at an event featuring an Israeli Defense Force officer in February. They also alleged that a group known as Law Students for Justice in Palestine conducted an antisemitic harassment campaign against Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.

UC Berkeley moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs were seeking to turn a dispute over student group bylaws into an “open forum for litigating incidents at UC Berkeley as they hit the news,” in many cases before the school had had a chance to respond to those incidents.

UC Berkeley further claimed that the complaint did not manage to allege that the school had shown” deliberate indifference” in its response to the alleged antisemitism.

The plaintiffs, however, countered that the question of deliberate indifference is normally decided on a full factual record at the summary judgment stage. Even if it were not too early to decide on that, they argued, the details in their complaint means that their allegations “go far beyond plausibility.”

Representatives for UC Berkeley declined to comment on Tuesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by John V. Coghlan and Tara Helfman of Torridon Law PLLC, Eric M. George and David J. Carroll of Ellis George LLP, and Kenneth L. Marcus and L. Rachel Lerman in-house at the Brandeis Center.

UC Berkeley, its law school and the other defendants are represented by Hailyn J. Chen and Bryan H. Heckenlively of
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

The case is Louis D. Brandeis Center Inc. et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al., case number 3:23-cv-06133, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Brandeis Center and our partners at StandWithUs and ADL jointly filed a federal complaint against Ohio State University (OSU), alleging a pervasive anti-Semitic climate for Jewish students. Pratt Institute removed a BDS resolution from its Academic Senate agenda after receiving a letter from LDB warning that passage “would trigger [New York State] to divest all state funding from Pratt. And NBC News sought LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus’s comment on a major feature about anti-Semitism escalating across America’s college campuses.

‘Proactively Open Investigations,’ Kenneth Marcus Tells U.S. Dept. of Education

NBC News contacted LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus for a feature article about the pro-Hamas encampments that have been sweeping American university campuses.

Marcus centered an important point about the U.S. Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) – the office which he used to lead – should be doing right now: “The department’s office of civil rights should be seizing the moment and taking charge of this situation. It’s not enough merely to wait passively for complaints to come in and log them and indicate that investigations have been opened.”

Marcus continued: “They should be proactively opening investigations rather than waiting.”

LDB, ADL, and StandWithUs File Complaint Against OSU for Hostile, Pervasive Anti-Semitism

The Brandeis Center, Anti-Defamation League, and StandWithUs submitted a formal complaint with OCR against Ohio State University, alleging the university has failed to address the severe discrimination and harassment of Jewish and Israeli students following the October 7 massacre in Israel, which fostered “a hostile anti-Semitic environment that is now pervasive” at Ohio State.

The groups allege that since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, Jewish students at OSU have faced a litany of anti-Semitic incidents, including physical assaults, threatening graffiti in classrooms and university facilities, as well as the removal of posters and photos of kidnapped Israelis. The complaint seeks remedies under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“There is a clear, direct, and indisputable correlation between lack of accountability and rising levels of anti-Semitism,” stated LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Schools must act immediately to address incidents and hold violators accountable. Unfortunately, schools like Ohio State that continue to sweep incidents under the rug are getting worse by the day….Schools must uphold the law and address each and every incident of antisemitic discrimination and harassment, or the problem will continue to snowball.”

The complaint urges OCR to compel the university’s administration to implement measures necessary to secure the safety of Jewish and Israeli students at OSU, including by issuing a public statement condemning anti-Semitic hostility on campus and devoting more resources and increasing security measure to deter future attacks. The complaint also urges the university to incorporate the IHRA working definition of antisemitism into its campus policies concerning discrimination, and to provide mandatory anti-Semitism training to university administrators, faculty, students and staff.

LDB Letter Moves Pratt Institute to Back Down from Holding BDS Vote on Passover

Brandeis Center Director of Corporate Initiatives and Senior Counsel Rory Lancman sent a letter to Pratt Institute’s Board Chair, President and Academic Senate President. The requests the Academic Senate to withdraw a BDS resolution – or risk running afoul of New York State law that “would trigger the state to divest all state funding from Pratt.”

“Jewish faculty were being excluded from having any say because the measure was being introduced and potentially voted on during their religious holiday, when most if not all will be with family and friends,” Hon. Rory Lancman told the New York Post. “The anti-Semitic proposal is so broadly written that it could even ban Jewish community groups such as Hillel and Chabad from campus.” LDB represents staff and students opposed to the proposal.

“Holding a vote to boycott Israel at that Passover meeting is positively obscene,” declared Lancman in the April 19 letter to Pratt board of trustees Chairman Garry Hattem, President Frances Bronet and Academic Senate President Uzma Rizvi, an archaeological professor.

Lancman warned that Pratt’s refusal to accommodate the religious beliefs of Pratt’s Jewish students and staff by postponing a meeting that particularly impacts them as Jews would violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covering higher education institutions that receive federal funding. He noted that a state executive order implemented first by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2016 and continued by Gov. Kathy Hochul bars New York State government from doing business with institutions that support the boycott, divest and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

“Any such boycott is illegal and, of course, among other things, would trigger the state to divest (oh, the irony) all state funding from Pratt,” Lancman wrote in LDB’s letter.

In response to the Brandeis Center’s letter, Pratt ultimately relented and removed the BDS resolution vote from its Academic Senate agenda.

The Post sought Lancman’s comment regarding a second anti-Semitic incident – involving the same professor who heads Pratt’s Academic Senate – concerning graphic and horrendous “Red Hands” vandalism to a tree on Pratt’s campus. “What better way to terrorize your Jewish students and faculty into submission than maintaining a display in the middle of your campus representing Jews getting lynched?” Lancman rhetorically asked the Post.

Alyza Lewin Urges Vanderbilt to Admit Jewish Student Group to Campus Multicultural Organization

Vanderbilt University has denied its local Students Supporting Israel (SSI) chapter membership in the Multicultural Leadership Council branch of its student government.

The Algemeiner, in its coverage of the story, referred to insights from Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin about a similar incident faced by Duke’s SSI chapter in 2021. At the time, LDB advised Duke’s SSI chapter and sent a letter warning the university about its exposure to legal liability should it fail to reverse the student government’s discriminatory decision not to grant the group recognition as an official student organization.

“Grant them the same access,” Lewin said at the time, warning of potential civil rights violations. “Treat them no differently than any other student recognized organization. If the university chooses not to intervene and does not make sure that SSI gets equal access and it is understood to be no different than any other organization, there could be potential legal liability for the university.”

Rachel Lerman Discusses LDB Anti-Semitism Lawsuit Against UC Berkeley on Bloomberg Podcast

Brandeis Center General Counsel and Vice Chair L. Rachel Lerman joined Bloomberg Law’s “On the Merits” podcast for an episode titled “Why Lawsuits Against Campus Antisemitism May Succeed.”

Lerman discussed the Brandeis Center’s pending lawsuit against the University of California Berkeley over the “longstanding unchecked spread of anti-Semitism” on Berkeley’s campus.

“After October 7 it became dramatically worse. We are speaking to many students…who are telling us of their experiences on campus. A couple of them have been assaulted, some of them have been threatened, all of them have had to deal with the ongoing rallies…and different kind of pro-Hamas events going on at the school,” said Lerman.

‘Not Pro-Palestinian, This is Pro-Hate’ Declares Marcus on Fox News

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus appeared on Fox News Live, the day following the Islamic Republic of Iran’s attack against Israel – to discuss protesters in Chicago erupting into applause to the news of the attack.

“These are the moments when the anti-Israel activists give up the game….They are gleeful about an escalation of war, about an attack on the Jewish state. Peace activists don’t praise escalations of war. Human rights activists don’t support attacks on civilian populations,” asserted Marcus. “What we’re seeing when it comes to the organized anti-Zionist movement cannot be understood as anything other than an organized hate group or anti-Semitism organization.”

This is the default image

Kenneth Marcus Praises Congressional Hearing, Making it Harder for Columbia ‘Administrators to Gaslight Students’

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus provided insights to Politico, ahead of the U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce hearing on campus anti-Semitism with Columbia University President Minouche Shafik.

Marcus praised the Committee’s decision to hold another public hearing on campus anti-Semitism. He said the heightened awareness from Congressional scrutiny greatly benefits Jewish students, who have faced anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination long before the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel triggered nationwide campus demonstrations.

“This has made it harder for administrators to gaslight students and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist,” declared Marcus. “It’s also created pressures that have led some administrators to take useful actions, but they’re still too few and far between.”

Marcus Quoted Extensively in Free Press Article Examining Results from OCR Anti-Semitism Complaints and Independent Lawsuits

The Free Press quoted Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus extensively in a feature broadly examining anti-Semitism complaints filed with the U.S. Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR), along with independent lawsuits. The story describes the Brandeis Center as “the driving force behind much of this litigation.”

“The goal in these cases is to change the behavior of university administrators,” Marcus said, “so they will deter this sort of activity, which is not tolerated toward any other group.” Responding to the question of whether these legal challenges work, Marcus pointed to LDB’s landmark resolution agreement reached between the federal government and the University of Vermont, spurred by LDB’s Title VI anti-Semitism complaint: “No one is saying we’ve cured antisemitism in Vermont or that the work can stop there,” Marcus said. “What people are saying is that the university is dramatically more responsive to antisemitic incidents than it was before.”

The piece included Marcus’s views that the DEI ideological approach as a whole needs to be dismantled if Jews are to be fully protected from anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination: “As long as DEI programs are built upon the dichotomy of oppressors and oppressed, Jews will too often be defined as oppressors and told to own their privilege,” he said. “This entire ideological approach needs to be dismantled.”

The article also mentioned LDB’s rapid staff expansion following October 7.

Jewish Press Includes LDB in Select Group of Organizations, Urging Readers to ‘Donate Jewish’

The Brandeis Center thanks the Jewish Press for including our organization in its select group of pro-Jewish and Israel organizations to consider donating to this year.

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus was featured in a New York Times cover story on “The Man Who Helped Redefine Campus Anti-Semitism.” The Brandeis Center’s K-12 anti-Semitism complaint against the Berkeley Unified School District continues to generate intense interest from national news media. And Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin shared the stage with New York Attorney General Letitia James and other experts at ADL’s Never Is Now conference to discuss legal efforts aimed at combating anti-Semitism.

Kenneth Marcus in NYT: ‘The Man Who Helped Redefine Campus Anti-Semitism’

The New York Times published a page-one story on Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus titled “The Man Who Helped Redefine Campus Anti-Semitism.”

The front-page feature takes readers through the LDB Founder and Chairman’s journey – inside government and out – “helping to clarify civil rights protections for Jewish students under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and broadening the definition of what can be considered anti-Semitic.”

“He has also been an outside agitator, filing and promoting federal claims of harassment of Jews that he knows will garner media attention and put pressure on college administrators, students and faculty,” writes the Times. “The impact of his life’s work has never been more felt than in the last few months…”

The article includes the LDB founder’s formulation of the “Marcus Doctrine,” which established protections for Jews, Muslims and Sikhs against discrimination based on national origin, including actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics – and notes that the U.S. Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened 89 new shared ancestry investigations since October 7. And it details his first-ever implementation of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism in a campus anti-Semitism case.

“I’ve spent my career focused on this battle,” stated Marcus, “and it seems sometimes as if it’s all been leading up to this very moment.”

CNN Interviews Students from LDB K-12 Case: Berkeley Unified School District

“The Lead with Jake Tapper,” sat down with several Jewish students who have experienced anti-Semitic harassment within the Berkeley Unified School District public schools, where LDB recently filed a federal antidiscrimination complaint.

Referring to one of the incidents mentioned in LDB’s complaint, one of the students told viewers: “During the walkout – I could hear it from my classroom – one of my friends came in and told me: ‘They were chanting ‘Fuck the Jews.’”

This is the default image

CNN’s ‘The Lead with Jake Tapper’ segment on
LDB complaint against BUSD – 3/18/24

On NewsNation, Rachel Lerman Explains Nonstop Anti-Semitic Bullying and Harassment in Berkeley Unified School District Schools

While speaking about LDB’s anti-Semitism complaint against BUSD on NewsNation’s “On Balance With Leland Vittert,” Brandeis Center General Counsel L. Rachel Lerman explained: “We’ve been working on college campuses for many years, and we’ve recently been looking at K-12 – and after October 7, honestly our phone just rang off the hook with parents calling us in distress about what’s going on in their children’s schools.”

As Lerman stated: “The idea that 7-year-olds are asked to participate in this kind of condemnation of Israel, which they cannot possibly understand – and then placing that outside the Jewish teacher’s door – is just awful.”

This is the default image

Rachel Lerman on NewsNation ‘On Balance with Leland Vittert’:
Berkeley School Anti-Semitism Complaint

Alyza D. Lewin Tells ADL Never Is Now Audience About ‘Taking Anti-Semitism and Hate to Court’

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin joined New York State Attorney General Letitia James and legal experts at the ADL and elsewhere for a conversation at ADL’s Never Is Now conference about how the legal system has become a battleground for addressing anti-Semitism, hate speech, discrimination and intolerance.

Lewin discussed the complexities and challenges of tackling anti-Semitic hate in courtrooms and before government agencies and explained how the use of legal tools to protect the rights of Jews – like filing Title VI complaints – opens potential pathways towards a more inclusive and just society more broadly.

Rachel Lerman Highlights the Wave of Anti-Semitism Directed at California’s K-12 Students

Writing in The Jewish News of Northern California, LDB General Counsel L. Rachel Lerman detailed the deluge of inquiries the Brandeis Center began receiving from outraged and distraught parents in the Bay Area after the October 7 massacre.

“Parents told us about second graders being directed to write ‘stop bombing babies’ on sticky notes and placing them on the door of their elementary school’s only Jewish teacher; teachers instructing students of all ages that Israelis are responsible for the massacre of their own families on October 7; and teachers encouraging middle and high school students to walk out during the school day to ‘march for Gaza’ without notice to parents or any of the usual safety protocols.’

Lerman highlighted projects from the Brandeis Center and partners to help besieged Jewish parents, teachers and students in California, such as a legal helpline for K-12 parents and a federal anti-Semitism complaint filed against the Berkeley Unified School District. She also provided background on pre-October 7 California legislation that contributed to the current strife.

“The bottom line,” Lerman concluded, “is that Jewish students deserve an educational environment free from bullying, harassment and discrimination. California school administrators must enforce the state’s anti-discrimination laws. And for those who do not, California parents can report their children’s experience to civil rights legal advocates.”

Kenneth Marcus Tells Jewish Insider: ‘There’s Been Anti-Semitic Bigotry [at] Columbia for Decades Now’

Following an announcement by Columbia University’s task force on anti-Semitism about new recommendations pertaining to rules for campus protesting, Jewish Insider turned to Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus for his insights in light of the longstanding hostile climate on Columbia’s campus.

“The new recommendations have some technically good work which could provide incremental advances, but it’s certainly not the kind of thing that will solve Columbia’s problems,” Marcus declared. “The fact is that there’s been antisemitic bigotry [at] Columbia University for decades now.”

“It’s not as if a few changes to the protest policies are going to substantially change the institution as long as they continue business as usual,” he continued. “Much of what’s in this new set of recommendations could have been written on Oct. 6 given everything that’s happened since. What’s needed is not a series of incremental measures, but a rethinking of what Columbia is doing to cause harm, not just to Jewish students but also to the surrounding community. These recommendations may lead to technical and marginal changes in the ways that the university responds to specific incidents, and generally speaking that’s a good thing.”

“I know this is only one of the series of reports that we can anticipate, but if this is an indication of what’s to come, it may provide some useful professional iteration but not a truly substantial change,” Marcus stated. “It does not indicate a new mindset that is ready to deal with the problems Oct. 7 has revealed.”

The article also mentions the Brandeis Center’s pending federal lawsuit against UC-Berkeley as well as LDB’s pending Department of Education complaints against American University, SUNY New Paltz, the University of Southern California, Brooklyn College, and the University of Illinois.

LDB Holds Capitol Hill Policy Briefing on How Hamas Propaganda Impacts U.S. Students

Hosted by U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx, the Brandeis Center held another Capitol Hill policy briefing March 26 titled “The Israel-Gaza War: How Hamas Propaganda Impacts American Students.”
 
Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus delivered opening remarks, while LDB Senior Counsel Mark Goldfeder interviewed urban warfare expert John W. Spencer. Spencer is an award-winning scholar, professor, author, combat veteran, national security and military analyst, and internationally recognized expert and advisor on urban warfare, military strategy, and tactics. Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin provided final remarks.
 
“Holding Jewish students responsible for Israel’s actions is blatantly anti-Semitic,” said Brandeis Center Director of Policy Education Emma Enig. “But it’s even worse when the charges against Israel are false. Why are students being forced to defend themselves against Hamas propaganda online and in the classroom?”

This is the default image

LDB Capitol Hill Policy Briefing: ‘The Israel-Gaza War:
How Hamas Propaganda Impacts American Students’

Kenneth Marcus Contextualizes Alarming Survey Data on Jews Feeling ‘Unsafe’ on Campus

Seventy-three percent of Jewish students reported feeling less safe on campus after the Oct. 7 attack, according to a joint ADL-Hillel survey released in November.
 
Speaking to the Washington Examiner, Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus contextualized the hostile campus culture that has given rise to these feelings of unsafety for Jewish students, and explained what universities should do to address the situation.
 
“Universities need to be both reactive and proactive. They need to respond to anti-Semitism with the same seriousness that they display when addressing other forms of discrimination. This means dismantling the two-tiered system under which microaggressions against other groups are fiercely resisted while even macroaggressions against Jewish students are minimized,” he said.
 
Marcus explained that a “serious response” would require looking at the “deep cultural rot” on campus and identifying a number of programs sold as fostering inclusivity but instead result in only furthering the problem. “This means taking a hard look at the whole constellation of programs that are supposed to make colleges better and instead are making them worse: everything from DEI to anti-racist programming to critical race theory to liberated ethnic studies to post-Colonial curricula to the whole identity-industrial complex,” he said.

Deena Margolies Discusses LDB’s Post-October 7 Title VI Cases with Students at Cardozo School of Law

At an event hosted by LDB’s Cardozo Law Student Chapter, Brandeis Center Staff Attorney Deena Margolies discussed the Title VI cases that the Brandeis Center is actively litigating since the October 7 Hamas attacks .

While the in-person event was open only to Cardozo School of Law students, the public was able to attend via Zoom.

Published in Jewish Insider 3/7/24; Story by Haley Cohen

Task force punts on whether some slogans chanted at anti-Israel rallies are antisemitic

The recommendations handed down earlier this week from Columbia University’s task force on antisemitism painted a picture of Jewish students feeling “isolation and pain” in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests that have gripped the campus since Oct. 7. 

They also cited a lack of disciplinary response from the university regarding unauthorized protests of the Israel-Hamas war as contributing to Jewish students’ struggles on campus, and called for the university to more effectively investigate policy violations by creating an easier process for filing complaints.

But on the pivotal question of whether some of the slogans chanted at those rallies veer from legitimate political speech into antisemitism the task force’s recommendations are ambiguous.

The report states, “Obviously, the chants ‘gas the Jews’ and ‘Hitler was right’ are calls to genocide, but fortunately no one at Columbia has been shouting these phrases… Rather, many of the chants at recent Columbia protests are viewed differently by different members of the Columbia community: some feel strongly that these are calls to genocide, while others feel strongly that they are not.” 

The report does not, however, specifically address the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free,” which has frequently been chanted at protests on Columbia’s campus and is widely viewed by Jewish groups as a call for genocide of Israelis.

According to David Schizer, a professor of law and economics and dean emeritus of Columbia’s law school, who is one of the three co-chairs of the task force, the key issue that the 24-page report addresses is the thorny matter of campus free speech — emphasizing that “everyone needs to have a right to speak and to protest,” he said. 

“How can we make sure the people have the right to speak and protest, while at the same time ensuring that protests don’t interfere with the ability of other members of the community to teach classes, study for a test, to hear their professors,” Schizer, who is also the former CEO of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, continued. While the report emphasizes the right to peaceful demonstrations, it also condemns faculty for participating in unauthorized demonstrations.

But some prominent leaders of the movement to fight antisemitism in higher education expressed skepticism that a set of recommendations could fix the raging antisemitism on Columbia’s campus — which has included repeated violations of the rules on protests and physical assault and other serious attacks on Jewish students. 

“The new recommendations have some technically good work which could provide incremental advances, but it’s certainly not the kind of thing that will solve Columbia’s problems,” Kenneth Marcus, founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told JI. The Brandeis Center recently filed federal complaints against the University of California for antisemitism at UC Berkeley and American University, while the Department of Education is currently investigating Brandeis Center complaints filed against Wellesley, SUNY New Paltz, the University of Southern California, Brooklyn College and the University of Illinois for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and for discrimination against Jewish students.

The recommendations come as Columbia faces pressure from donors and investigations by Congress and the Biden administration over antisemitism. It also comes in the wake of scrutiny regarding a number of antisemitism task forces set up at elite universities as a response to the surge in antisemitism that erupted following the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks in Israel. Five months later, questions remain over the effectiveness and direction of such groups — with some experts claiming task forces have been all talk with minimal action so far. 

But Schizer said that in Columbia’s case, there have been months of ongoing research of university policies, including interviewing students. It aims to release a series of reports in the coming months with the goal of gaining a deeper understanding of the campus climate and providing further recommendations.

The report states that while it agrees with the university’s principle that calls for genocide, like other incitement to violence, violate the rules, “the application of it should be clarified.”

It goes on to encourage the university’s legal team to “provide more guidance on this issue,” and emphasizes that clearer guidance is needed, like the university has done with its rules on gender-based misconduct to include “scenarios,” “to provide greater clarity help to provide fair notice, so Columbia affiliates have more of a sense of what is permissible (even if offensive) and what is not.” 

Columbia administration plans to review the task force’s interim policy at the end of this semester. Minouche Shafik, the university’s president, said in a statement that the new recommendations —  the first set in a series — are welcomed by the university and “will continue across a number of fronts as the University works to address this ancient, but sadly persistent, form of hate.” 

Marcus said it’s “good that Columbia finally has good people asking serious questions about harassment and disruptive protests,” but he added, “What’s needed is not just a few recommendations regarding the rules on protest. The fact is that there’s been antisemitic bigotry [at] Columbia University for decades now.”

“It’s not as if a few changes to the protest policies are going to substantially change the institution as long as they continue business as usual,” he continued. “Much of what’s in this new set of recommendations could have been written on Oct. 6 given everything that’s happened since. What’s needed is not a series of incremental measures, but a rethinking of what Columbia is doing to cause harm, not just to Jewish students but also to the surrounding community. These recommendations may lead to technical and marginal changes in the ways that the university responds to specific incidents, and generally speaking that’s a good thing. 

But it’s certainly not a solution to the problem.” 

Marcus noted that the recommendations are “framed fairly narrow, with response to only one narrow piece of the problem.” 

“I know this is only one of the series of reports that we can anticipate, but if this is an indication of what’s to come, it may provide some useful professional iteration but not a truly substantial change,” he said. “It does not indicate a new mindset that is ready to deal with the problems Oct. 7 has revealed.” 

Mark Yudof, chair of the Academic Engagement Network, expressed a similar sentiment as Marcus, but added that he’s “hopeful” the report will bring change. Schizer, as well as the two other co-chairs of the task force, Ester Fuchs and Nicolas Lemann, are all longtime members of AEN. 

“We need adequate rules about speech and we need to put teeth into it and have reasonable procedures in which people are actually disciplined for violating the rules,” Yudof said, calling the report “complex.” 

While skeptical, Yudof also expressed praise for the recommendations — “I think Columbia’s report gets at the core problem of education and I applaud them,” he said. 

“I like the report and am hopeful… I would urge the Columbia administration to adopt the recommendations of the task force, but the proof will be in the pudding.”

Published 12/27/23 by Campus Reform; Story by Patrick McDonald

In late November, several Jewish organizations filed a lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley, alleging a ‘longstanding, unchecked spread of anti-Semitism.’
The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in San Francisco by the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education.

In late November, several Jewish organizations filed a lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley, alleging a “longstanding, unchecked spread of anti-Semitism” at the college.

Filed in a federal court in San Francisco by the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, the lawsuit is one of only a few brought against large colleges since the Israel-Hamas war broke out in October.

The lawsuit claims that the lack of a university response to anti-Semitism on campus has “erupted in on-campus displays of hatred, harassment, and physical violence against Jews,” necessitating a court intervention. It also states that “no fewer than 23” student organizations at UC Berkeley School of Law have enacted discriminatory policies that “exclude Jewish students, faculty, and scholars.” 

Specifically, the document points to Women of Berkeley Law, the Queer Caucus at Berkeley, and the Asian Pacific American (APA) Law Students Association. According to the lawsuit, to join these student groups, students must support the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Additionally, the suit mentions Berkeley Law Legal Services organizations, which require students to take a “Palestine 101” training program—a program that allegedly “emphasizes the illegitimacy of the State of Israel.”

Although the UC administration “publicly acknowledged the fundamentally anti-Semitic nature” of various student groups, the plaintiffs allege that the school has “taken no action to address them.”

The plaintiffs identify alleged acts of unaddressed anti-Semitism, including a professor ranting against Israel for 18 minutes in the presence of around 1,000 freshmen, “anti-Semitic mobs” on campus who cause Jewish students to feel “afraid to go to class,” and a Jewish student being attacked by two pro-Palestinian protesters and hit in the head with a metal water bottle.

The plaintiffs also aim to change the university’s response to anti-Semitism through a court order mandating that UC Berkeley uphold its nondiscrimination policies, and refrain from providing support or recognition to campus organizations that exclude Jewish students.

In an interview with The Hill, Dan Mogulof, an assistant vice chancellor at UC Berkeley, denied the allegations made in the lawsuit, saying that UC Berkeley has “long committed to confronting” anti-Semitism. He specifically pointed to UC Berkeley’s “Antisemitism Education Initiative” that began in fall 2019.

Campus Reform has contacted the University of California, Berkeley and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE) member and UC Berkeley grad student Hannah Schlacter also featured. 12/17/23

Published by Jewish Insider on 11/28/23; Story by Haley Cohen

UC Berkeley professor: ‘There’s a group of students who feel free to say the nastiest slurs as long as they substitute Zionist for Jew’

Citing claims of a “longstanding, unchecked spread of antisemitism” on the University of California, Berkeley’s campus, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed a complaint on behalf of Jewish students on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the campus is a “hotbed of anti-Jewish hostility and harassment,” Jewish Insider has learned.

The lawsuit, which names the University of California (UC) Regents, UC President Michael Drake, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ and other officials as defendants, claims that since Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack in Israel, antisemitism has been exacerbated at the school — citing several on-campus incidents of intimidation, harassment and physical violence against Jewish students.

UC Berkeley Jewish students wrote in the complaint that the school does so little to protect Jewish students, it feels as if the school is condoning antisemitism. They added that officials at the university display a “general disregard” for Jewish students.

“The concerns of Jewish students are not being taken seriously and incidents that are affecting Jewish students are not being treated the same as incidents that would affect another targeted minority on campus,” Hannah Schlacter, an MBA student at the school, told JI.

The complaint, a copy of which was obtained by JI, details a pro-Palestinian rally following Oct. 7 in which a Jewish undergraduate who was draped in an Israeli flag was attacked by two protesters who struck him in the head with a metal water bottle.

It further cites that Jewish students and Jewish faculty are receiving hate mail calling for their gassing and murder, and claims that many Jewish students report feeling afraid to go to class. Pro-Palestinian protesters, the suit continues, disrupted a prayer gathering by Jewish students and blocked the main entrance to campus, and a faculty member went on an 18-minute anti-Israel rant in front of roughly 1,000 freshmen in his lecture class.

“Frankly, I’m not sure why a Jewish student would come to [Berkeley] law school,” UCB professor Steven Davidoff Solomon, who teaches an undergraduate class on antisemitism in the law, told JI. “There’s a group of students who feel free to say the nastiest slurs as long as they substitute Zionist for Jew and they repeatedly do that while the administration refuses to take steps to condemn it, to conduct training, to take measures they would take if it was discrimination against other minorities, and it’s disappointing,” he said, calling the lawsuit a “last resort.”

UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky acknowledged rising antisemitism at the school in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. “I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life have I seen or felt the antisemitism of the last few weeks.” He noted that, “[t]wo weeks ago, at a town hall, a student told me that what would make her feel safe in the law school would be to ‘get rid of the Zionists.’” He added he had “heard several times that I have been called ‘part of a Zionist conspiracy,’ which echoes antisemitic tropes that have been expressed for centuries.”

Schlacter, who testified about antisemitism on campus to the University of California Board of Regents earlier this month, said, “When we look at the policy in place, it appears the policy is not being enforced for issues affecting Jewish students. When it isn’t enforced for our situation but is for other situations, that to me is discrimination.”

“Moreover, policy not being enforced sends a message that when there are hate crimes against Jewish students, that is accepted because it will be swept under the rug,” she continued. “We’ve made efforts to speak to the administration and do not feel like we are taken seriously. There’s a disconnect between the asks students are making [and] the actions the administration is taking.”

After Schlacter and other students met with UC Regents, the board committed $7 million to combating antisemitism and Islamophobia. “Seven million dollars distributed across 10 campuses per year, I’m not sure how far that will go,” she said. “Also, throwing money at the problem is not getting to the root, which is that Jewish students are being treated differently and policies are not being enforced when there’s Jewish students involved.”

Schlacter said she does not want to see the campus anti-Israel group, Bears for Palestine, named for the school’s mascot, shut down, as several other schools have done with chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine. “Disbanding those groups is not a long-term solution,” she said. “The long-term solution is looking at culture across the UC system. Why is there hostility and how do we combat that in the culture? What programs and initiatives can we launch to have a more truly inclusive culture?”

Schlacter said she would like to see the school’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion office employees be trained on identifying antisemitism.

UCB Chabad Rabbi Gil Leeds, who is also a UCB alum and has served as the campus Chabad rabbi since 2007, said the antisemitism situation is worse than it’s ever been at the school. “Jewish students assaulted at rallies is a whole new level of hostilities that we haven’t seen,” Leeds said, noting that several students involved with Chabad are from Israel. “Police are scared to get involved because they are worried about greater violence. That shows you what we’re dealing with.”

Leeds said there has been “tremendous fear and trepidation,” particularly last month when National SJP called for a “Day of Resistance” at campuses nationwide. “Our armed guard that day came prepared with tear gas, everything he thought he would need… the company that we contacted would not agree to send us an unarmed guard, that’s the level of intensity.”

The lawsuit states that while antisemitism has increased since Oct. 7, it has long been prevalent on campus. It cites a decision last year by nine law school student organizations to amend their constitutions with a bylaw that bans any pro-Israel speaker. The numbers have now swelled to 23 groups, including academic journals that prohibit Zionists from publishing and pro-bono organizations that prevent Jewish students from receiving hands-on legal experience, training, supervision and mentorship.

The ban denies Jewish law students networking opportunities provided to others; deprives them of earning pro-bono hours for state bar requirements; curtails their avenues for developing and improving legal research, writing, and editing skills; and limits their choices for obtaining academic credits towards graduation, according to the lawsuit, which notes this is all illegal under federal law and university policies.

”The situation at Berkeley has deteriorated to the point that something really needs to be done beyond just raising awareness. We’re facing antisemitism at campuses around the country, but Berkeley is especially bad. Of all places, Berkeley had a number of warnings that they needed to address antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and yet they failed to heed them,” said Kenneth Marcus, the Brandeis Center founder and a Berkeley Law school alum.

While the situation that was highlighted last year focused on the law school, Marcus said “it has certainly spread far beyond that and we have been getting reports throughout the university, including the undergraduate institution.”

According to the complaint, Berkeley’s acquiescence to these discriminatory policies has helped give antisemitism free reign on campus in violation of the law. “This suit targets the longstanding, unchecked spread of antisemitism at the University of California Berkeley, which, following the October 7 Hamas attacks, has erupted in on-campus displays of hatred, harassment, and physical violence against Jews,” states the complaint. “Court interventIon is now needed to protect students and faculty and to end this anti-Semitc discrimination and harassment, which violates University policy, federal civil rights laws, and the U.S. Constitution.”

Earlier this month, the Brandeis Center, the Anti-Defamation League, Hillel International and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP launched the Campus Antisemitism Legal Line (CALL), a free legal protection helpline for college students who have experienced antisemitism.

“After Oct. 7 there’s been a lack of moral leadership but when you look more closely, Jewish students [at Berkeley] have been discriminated against for well over a year,” the ADL’s Central Pacific regional director, Marc Levine, told JI. “It wasn’t just demonstration in support of Hamas’ attacks that this began. Student groups already were actively banning Zionists from participating in their activities.”

Levine, a former California State assembly member, called on local politicians to hold the University of California accountable for the “gutless response to antisemitism on campus.”

Published by Politico on 11/28/23; Story by Bianca Quilantan

The 36-page lawsuit argues that UC Berkeley and its law school’s inaction on discrimination against Jewish students has led to a spread of antisemitism.

Jewish groups are suing the University of California system, UC Berkeley and its leaders over what they are calling a “longstanding, unchecked spread of anti-Semitism.”

The 36-page lawsuit, filed Tuesday by the Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, argues that Berkeley and its law school’s “inaction” on discrimination against Jewish students has led to a spread of antisemitism, and violence and harassment against them. Demonstrations and incidents on campus following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel serve as examples of the discrimination, according to the complaint.

The complaint is among the first high-profile lawsuits against a university in the aftermath of the protests that roiled campuses in response to the conflict in the Middle East.

Jewish groups are suing over policies enacted by at least 23 Berkeley Law student groups that exclude students from joining or bar guest speakers from presenting if they do not agree to disavow Israel or if they identify as Zionists. They argue that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism and say that the policies violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and more.

“Conditioning a Jew’s ability to participate in a student group on his or her renunciation of a core component of Jewish identity is no less pernicious than demanding the renunciation of some other core element of a student’s identity — whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual identity,” the lawsuit said. “No such imposition is required — or would be remotely tolerated — of other students.”

The groups are accusing Berkeley and the UC system of inaction against the policies that “betray” Jewish students and faculty. They argue that the student group policies violate a university policy that prohibits registered student groups, including law school groups, from imposing membership restrictions based on race, color, national origin and religion.

The Jewish groups want the court to intervene and require the university and university system to enforce their policies and prohibit discrimination against Jewish students, faculty and invited speakers. They say that Berkeley has suggested that the student group policies discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and not race, ethnicity or religion, but campus leaders have also acknowledged that the policies can be “deeply upsetting to some Jewish members.”

“By abdicating responsibility and failing to act as required by UC rules and U.S. law, the university has enabled the normalization of anti-Jewish hatred on campus,” the lawsuit said. “Jewish students feel compelled to hide their identities.”

Additionally, the groups say that the university has failed to address antisemitic incidents on campus following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. They said students’ celebrations of the Hamas attacks resulted in violence against Jewish students. A Jewish student draped in an Israeli flag was attacked by protesters who hit him in the head with a metal water bottle, according to the complaint, and some Jews have received “hate e-mails calling for their gassing and murder.” Jewish students have also said they are afraid to attend class because of the protests.

“Students stated that the school does so little to protect Jewish students, it feels as if the school were condoning anti-Semitism,” the complaint said. “They added that officials at the university display a ‘general disregard’ for Jewish students. … They have little confidence that UC will protect them from anti-Semitic mobs.”

Contact: Nicole Rosen 202-309-5724

Once a Beacon of Civil Rights, Berkeley Now Home to Physical Intimidation and Violence Against Jews and 23 Orgs that Ban “Zionists”

Washington, D.C., Nov. 28, 2023:  The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law is suing the University of California (UC) Regents, UC President Michael Drake, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ, and other officials, for the “longstanding, unchecked spread of anti-Semitism” on Berkeley’s campus that has resulted in a current hotbed of anti-Jewish hostility and harassment. The complaint was filed today in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Since Oct. 7 anti-Semitism has run rampant at the school, according to the Brandeis Center. Reported for the very first time in this complaint are numerous incidents of intimidation, harassment and physical violence against Jewish students.

For example, during one of the numerous rallies held at UC Berkeley celebrating Hamas, a Jewish undergraduate draped in an Israeli flag was set upon by two protesters who struck him in the head with a metal water bottle. Jewish students and faculty are receiving hate mail calling for their gassing and murder.  Many Jewish students report feeling afraid to go to class.

Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted a prayer gathering by Jewish students. Pro-Palestinian rallies blocked the main entrance to campus.   And a UC Berkeley faculty member went on an anti-Israel rant for 18 minutes, with roughly 1,000 freshman as his captive audience.

Students participating in the pro-Hamas rallies have spouted hatred and threats against Jews, harassed Jewish students, demanded the dismantling of Israel, honored Hamas “martyrs” who were killed while butchering Jewish civilians, and chanted phrases such as “intifada, intifada,” condoning violence against Jews, and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” calls for the elimination of Israel and the eradication of the 7 million Jews that live there.

UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky acknowledges the rampant anti-Semitism at his school, writing recently, “I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life have I seen or felt the antisemitism of the last few weeks.” He noted that, “[t]wo weeks ago, at a town hall, a student told me that what would make her feel safe in the law school would be to ‘get rid of the Zionists.’” He added he had “heard several times that I have been called ‘part of a Zionist conspiracy,’ which echoes antisemitic tropes that have been expressed for centuries.”

UC Berkely Jewish students shared in the complaint that the school does so little to protect Jewish students, it feels as if the school is condoning anti-Semitism. They added that officials at the university display a “general disregard” for Jewish students. Indeed, many Jewish students have reported feeling afraid to go to class during the pro-Hamas rallies because they have little confidence UC will protect them from anti-Semitic mobs.

“The anti-Semitism Berkeley’s Jewish students find themselves embroiled in today did not start on Oct. 7,” stated Kenneth L. Marcus, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for the Bush and Trump administrations, current founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center, and a graduate of UC Berkeley’s law school.  “It is a direct result of Berkeley’s leadership repeatedly turning a blind eye to unfettered Jew-hatred.  The school is quick to address other types of hatred, but why not anti-Semitism?  Berkeley, once a beacon of free speech, civil rights, and equal treatment of persons regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and sexual preference, is heading down a very different and dangerous path from the one I proudly attended as a Jewish law student.”

The most prominent example of pre-Oct. 7 willful blindness Marcus is referring to, and a primary focus of this lawsuit, is a decision last year by nine law student organizations to amend their constitutions with a bylaw that bans all Zionist speakers.  The numbers have now swelled to 23 groups, including academic journals that prohibit Zionists from publishing and pro-bono organizations that prevent Jewish students from receiving hands-on legal experience, training, supervision and mentorship. The Zionist ban denies Jewish law students networking opportunities provided to others; deprives them of earning pro-bono hours for state bar requirements; curtails their avenues for developing and improving legal research, writing, and editing skills; and limits their choices for obtaining academic credits towards graduation.  This is all illegal under federal law and university policies.

It has become commonplace for persons seeking to disguise their anti-Semitism to use the word “Zionists” to mean Jews. The Biden National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism notes that, “[w]hen Jews are targeted because of their beliefs or their identity, when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hatred, that is antisemitism.”  The White House explains that protection of Jews as a religious, national and ethnic group includes protection from anti-Israel bias and discrimination.  Anti-Zionism is different from criticism of Israel or opposition to the policies of the Israeli government.  Anti-Zionism rejects the very right of Israel to exist and denies Jews the fundamental right to self-determination. A Pew survey found that 80% of Jews view Israel as integral to their Jewish identity. Dean Chemerinsky himself has acknowledged the ban excludes “90 percent or more” of Jewish students at Berkeley law.

While UC Berkeley leaders have repeatedly acknowledged the Zionist ban is blatant anti-Semitism, they have done nothing to address it.  This has allowed anti-Jewish bigotry to normalize and escalate.

The UC leaders have, instead, excused the discrimination as “viewpoint discrimination,” protected, they claim, by the First Amendment.  The lawsuit makes abundantly clear, however, that UC Berkeley leaders’ choice to ignore discriminatory behavior violates federal law and university policies.  According to the Brandeis Center, the discriminatory ban does not exclude individuals based on viewpoint because it has nothing to do with anything a given speaker might say or author might write.  Instead it excludes Zionist speakers because of who they are.

“Making Jews renounce that core component of their identity to participate in a student organization is no different than asking members of the LGBTQ community to remain ‘in the closet’ as the cost of membership—a cost that is not imposed on other students who are free to participate fully in those organizations without disavowing or hiding their identities,” stated Rachel Lerman, vice chair and general counsel at the Brandeis Center and also a graduate of UC Berkeley Law School.

According to the complaint, Berkeley’s acquiescence to these discriminatory policies has helped give anti-Semitism free reign on campus in violation of the law.  “This suit targets the longstanding, unchecked spread of anti-Semitism at the University of California Berkeley, which, following the October 7 Hamas attacks, has erupted in on-campus displays of hatred, harassment, and physical violence against Jews,” states the complaint.  “Court intervention is now needed to protect students and faculty and to end this anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment, which violates University policy, federal civil rights laws, and the U.S. Constitution.”

Earlier this month, the Brandeis Center, along with the ADL, Hillel International, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and other leading law firms and Jewish organizations, launched the Campus Antisemitism Legal Line (CALL), a free legal protection helpline for college students who have experienced antisemitism. Over the past month, the Brandeis Center has filed two Title VI complaints with the U.S. Department of Education against the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) and Wellesley College, and sent a strong legal warning to Harvard University regarding its failure to take action against a professor that Harvard itself admitted had discriminated against Jewish Israeli students.  Two weeks ago the Department of Education announced it was formally investigating Brandeis’ UPenn and Wellesley complaints.

The Department of Education recently reached an unprecedented agreement with the University of Vermont to address growing antisemitism on its campus in response to a complaint filed by the Brandeis Center on behalf of UVM Jewish students, and, in addition to UPenn and Wellesley, the Department of Education is investigating another four pending Brandeis Center complaints at SUNY New Paltz, the University of Southern California (USC), Brooklyn College, and the University of Illinois.

To view this press release as a PDF, click here.

Op-ed authored by Kenneth L. Marcus in Jewish Journal; published September 28, 2022.

 

If it wasn’t so frightening, one might be able to recognize the irony in the sight of campus progressives trying so hard to signal progressive virtue that they fall victim to a deeper moral shame.

 

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism. And these are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include Women of Berkeley Law, Asian PacificAmerican Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus. Berkeley Law’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he himself would be banned under this standard, as would 90% of his Jewish students.

 

It is now a century since Jewish-free zones first spread to the San Francisco Bay Area (“No Dogs. No Jews”). Nevertheless, this move seems frightening and unexpected, like a bang on the door in the night.

 

Berkeley law students are not the first to exclude Zionists. At the State University of New York at New Paltz, activists drove two sexual assault victims out of a survivor group for being Zionists. At the University of Southern California, they drove Jewish student government vice president Rose Ritch out of office, threatening to “impeach [her] Zionist ass.” At Tufts, they tried to oust student judiciary committee member Max Price from the student government judiciary committee because of his support for Israel.

 

These exclusions reflect the changing face of campus antisemitism. The highest profile incidents are no longer just about toxic speech, which poisons the campus environment.

 

Now anti-Zionist groups target Jewish Americans directly.

 

Anti-Zionism is flatly antisemitic. Using “Zionist” as a euphemism for Jew is nothing more than a confidence trick. Like other forms of Judeophobia, it is an ideology of hate, treating Israel as the “collective Jew” and smearing the Jewish state with defamations similar to those used for centuries to vilify individual Jews. This ideology establishes a conspiratorial worldview, sometimes including replacement theory, which has occasionally erupted in violence, including mass-shooting, in recent months. Moreover, Zionism is an integral aspect of the identity of many Jews. Its derogation is analogous, in this way, to other forms of hate and bigotry.

 

Some commentators defend these exclusions on speech grounds, arguing that “groups also have a right to be selective, to set their own rules for membership.” They are wrong about this. As Dean Chemerinsky explains, the free speech arguments run in the other direction: Berkeley’s anti-Zionist bylaws limit the free speech of Zionist students.

 

Discriminatory conduct, including anti-Zionist exclusions, is not protected as free speech. While hate speech is often constitutionally protected, such conduct may violate a host of civil rights laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not always the case that student groups have the right to exclude members in ways that reflect hate and bigotry. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of another Bay Area University of California law school, Hastings College of the Law, to require student groups to accept all students regardless of status or beliefs. Specifically, the Court blessed Hastings’ decision to require Christian groups to accept gay members.

 

Putting legal precedents aside, major universities generally require student groups to accept “all comers,” regardless of “status of beliefs.” They also adopt rules, aligned with federal and state law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of various classifications such as race, ethnicity, heritage or religion. Those who adopt such rules may not exclude Jews from these protections.

 

The real issue here is discrimination, not speech. By adopting anti-Jewish bylaw provisions, these groups are restricting their successors from cooperating with pro-Israel speakers and groups. In this way, the exclusionary bylaws operate like racially restrictive covenants, precluding minority participation into perpetuity.

 

Universities should not have to be legally compelled to do what is obviously right. Anti-Zionist policies would still be monstrously immoral, even if they were not also unlawful. The students should be ashamed of themselves. As should grownups who stand quietly by or mutter meekly about free speech as university spaces go as the Nazis’ infamous call, judenfrei. Jewish-free.