This month, the Brandeis Center and ADL filed a federal antidiscrimination complaint with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights against the Berkeley Unified School District, over its failure to address rampant anti-Semitic bullying and harassment of Jewish students after October 7 at schools throughout the District. In partnership with the ADL and law firms Covington & Burling LLP; Akin; Dechert LLP; and Davis Polk, LDB also launched a legal helpline for parents whose children are experiencing anti-Semitism in K-12 public schools in California. And we unveiled a new website!

LDB + ADL File Federal Complaint Against Berkeley Unified School District for ‘Severe and Persistent’ Anti-Semitic Bullying

The Brandeis Center and Anti-Defamation League filed a complaint with the U.S. Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights against the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) for failing to take action to end pervasive bullying and harassment of Jewish students by peers and teachers since October 7 at numerous schools across the District.

Berkeley administrators have ignored parent reports and knowingly allowed its K-12 schools to become hostile environments for Jewish and Israeli students. Parents have repeatedly reported anti-Semitic incidents to the administration, but BUSD has done nothing to address, much less curtail, the hostile environment that has plagued BUSD for more than four months.

“The eruption of anti-Semitism in Berkeley’s elementary and high schools is like nothing I’ve ever seen before,” said LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “It is dangerous enough to see faculty fanning the flames of anti-Semitism on college campuses, but to see teachers inciting hate in the youngest of grades while Berkeley administrators sit idly by as it continues to escalate by the day is reprehensible. Where is the accountability? Where are the people who are supposed to protect and educate students?”

LDB, ADL and other Jewish organizations, recently filed a lawsuit to stop anti-Semitic content from being taught in Santa Ana, California public schools.

KPIX-TV (CBS, Bay Area): Berkeley Unified targeted with federal complaint over antisemitic harassment of Jewish students

Brandeis Center, ADL, StandWithUs and Law Firms Launch Second Legal Protection Helpline – for K-12 Anti-Semitism in California

In partnership with the ADL, StandWithUs, and law firms Covington & Burling LLP; Akin; Dechert LLP; and Davis Polk, LDB launched a legal helpline for parents whose children are experiencing anti-Semitism in K-12 public schools in California.

The K-12 helpline, which will gather data about incidents of anti-Semitism in K-12 schools in California, is a separate initiative from the Campus Antisemitism Legal Line (CALL), which primarily serves college students and was launched by LDB, ADL, Hillel International and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in response to the surge of anti-Semitism that erupted on campuses across the country in the aftermath of October 7 Hamas attacks.

“Frankly, school principals and administrators should themselves be cracking down on the surge in anti-Jewish bullying we are witnessing. That is what the law requires,” stated Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “However, far too many are failing in their legal responsibilities and choosing to sweep escalating anti-Semitism under the rug. Our legal team stands ready to step into this gap and demand the protections Jewish students are guaranteed under the law.”

Alyza Lewin Profiled on ‘Nice Jewish Girls’ Podcast

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin was the focus of an episode of the ‘Nice Jewish Girls’ podcast, where she discussed “The Case Against Antisemitism.”

Lewin discussed her work leading the litigation team that represented the Israeli licensee of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, in the successful lawsuit filed against Unilever to prevent Ben & Jerry’s unlawful boycott of Israel. She also discussed her achievement arguing the “Jerusalem Passport” case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which paved the way for President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

Alyza Lewin: The Case Against Antisemitism

Brandeis Center Launches New Website

The Brandeis Center unveiled its new website in February. LDB’s new website puts its groundbreaking casework and resources at your fingertips. Visitors to the new website are invited to explore the Brandeis Center’s work, which rests on the “four pillars” represented in our recently redesigned courthouse logo: advocacy, education, leadership and research .

Some highlights of our new website include: our Case Materials directory, which allows members of the public to search for legal filings and other documents related to our casework; an “Our Cases” page featuring key materials and information about prominent Brandeis Center cases; and a “Resource library” to help users find materials related to our work combating campus and workplace anti-Semitism – including our white papers, legal letters, webinars, surveys, and academic articles.

Thank you for making us your destination to stay up-to-date about combating anti-Semitism on and off American campuses.

LDB Joins Joint Statement by Coalition Working with Morningstar to Eliminate Anti-Israel Bias

The Brandeis Center and a coalition of Jewish American organizations issued a statement responding to an independent experts’ report of recommended actions to remove anti-Israel bias from financial services company Morningstar’s ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) subsidiary.

The coalition – which includes The Jewish Federations of North America, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, JLens, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and LDB – has been working for over two years to achieve this goal. The joint statement commends Morningstar for its stated commitment to implementing these recommendations by the end of 2024. Morningstar has already commissioned a follow-up report by the same experts to evaluate its progress.

Stated LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus: “We commend Morningstar for engaging with us, examining their ESG product, and committing to make the changes necessary to ensure that their rating system is apolitical, objective, and honest. We believe that implementing the experts’ report is critical to achieving this goal.”

LDB General Counsel L. Rachel Lerman told JNS she is “cautiously optimistic” that Morningstar will adopt the recommendations: “If they do, and we can convince other companies to do the same, I think there’s hope.”

The Brandeis Center Welcomes New Staff

As the demand for LDB’s services and legal expertise increases, we are pleased to welcome several new staff members to our rapidly expanding legal team, including Education Counsel Marci Lerner Miller, New York Senior Counsel David M. Dince, and Senior Counsel Robin N. Pick.

“The alarming and hateful environment affecting Jewish students, faculty and staff on campuses across the country – plus recognition of the Brandeis Center’s legal successes – has led to 10 times the volume of legal inquiries we experienced before October 7,” said Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Adding Robin, David, Marci, and other new lawyers to our staff helps the Brandeis Center further deliver on its mission – to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all.”

The Brandeis Center will continue to hire legal staff throughout 2024. Attorneys with an interest in using their legal skills and experience to combat anti-Semitism on campus and the workplace are encouraged to visit the job opportunities section of LDB’s new website – and subscribe to the organization’s mailing list. LDB continues to accept applications for civil rights legal fellows and law student clerkships.

New LDB Fact Sheet on Holocaust Denial

The Brandeis Center published an important new resource to combat rising anti-Semitism: a fact sheet on Holocaust denial.

LDB’s latest fact sheet defines Holocaust denial; provides a brief overview of its history; explains why it is anti-Semitic; explains who Holocaust deniers are and the common arguments they use; and discusses Holocaust education.

“Holocaust denial requires that the denier believe and perpetuate the notion that Jews are capable of a hoax so massive that Jews are capable of misleading the entire world … It is built on many of the age-old defamations of the Jewish people,” said Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus.

To learn more about Holocaust denial, access our new fact sheet here.

Julie Strauss Levin Joins Brandeis Center Legal Advisory Board

The Brandeis Center added additional legal might to its already-impressive Legal Advisory Board: Julie Strauss Levin, a legal and business expert in the for-profit and nonprofit spaces.

Ms. Levin was appointed by President Trump to sit on two Presidential Commissions and by VA Gov. Glenn Youngkin to sit on his Commission to Combat Antisemitism. She also serves on the Virginia Israel Advisory Board, the Advisory Board of the Gross Family Center for the Study of Antisemitism and the Holocaust, the Board of Directors for Our Community Salutes, and the lay Advisory Council of the Coalition for Jewish Values. Levin’s experience includes tenure as Senior Counsel at America First Legal Foundation, Principal of IGMP, LLC, General Counsel at Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, and Deputy General Counsel at Feld Entertainment.

“We are extremely pleased about Julie joining our legal advisory board, given her legal savvy and sound judgment,” said Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “As our work becomes increasingly complex, her expertise is an invaluable asset to us.”

LDB Law School Chapter Launches at Georgetown University Law Center

On February 12, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law at Georgetown University Law Center was formally recognized as a student organization.

LDB’s newest law student chapter was formed by a group of students dedicated to combatting anti-Semitism on campus at Georgetown Law and in the larger DC community.

The Georgetown chapter has already hosted vigils, educational sessions, and community building events, including events with notable speakers such as Matthew Levitt, Robert Garson, Alyza D. Lewin, and Cliff Rieders.

The Brandeis Center is excited to expand their partnership with students at Georgetown Law Center and to provide the students with access to a wide network of experts, legal guidance, educational materials, and advocacy opportunities.

LDB Events at NYU Law School + Brooklyn Law School

Brandeis Center New York Senior Counsel David M. Dince and Staff Attorney Deena Margolies attended back-to-back events on February 28 at schools with LDB law school chapters.

The NYU Law School LDB chapter Law Students Against Antisemitism hosted a “Coffee Chat” on campus. Margolies spoke to students at this event and answered questions about Title VI of the Civil Rights Act on campuses, post-October 7.

At Brooklyn Law School, Dince and Margolies joined a panel titled “A Night of Education and Remembrance: A Conversation with Holocaust Survivor Sammi Steigman.” The event was co-hosted by the Jewish Law Student Association and Students Against Antisemitism. Members from Brooklyn Law School LDB chapter Brooklyn Law Students Against Antisemitism were in attendance.

LDB Book Review: ‘Judging Jewish Identity in the United States’

Check out Brandeis Center Law Clerk Hannah Fischman’s review of the newly released book, Judging Jewish Identity in the United States, by Annalise E. Glauz-Todrank.

The book devotes ample space to the landmark 1987 case of Shaare Tefila v. Cobb, which established that members of ethno-religious groups , such as Jews and Sikhs, could avail themselves of civil rights protections that were established in Nineteenth Century civil rights legislation to protect against race discrimination but not religious discrimination.

As Fischman writes, “Shaare Tefila paved the road to the passage of the 2004 policy known as the Marcus Doctrine (after LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus), under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which announced that discrimination on the basis of ancestral or ethnic characteristics is no less permissible against groups that also have religious attributes than against those that do not.”

Brandeis Brief: September 2022

August was another results-packed month for the Brandeis Center. Our complaint against SUNY New Paltz was prominently covered by education, Jewish and mainstream media. CNN interviewed Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin and our client, a SUNY New Paltz student, for its primetime special, “Rising Hate: Antisemitism in America.” Also in August: LDB urged the SEC to eliminate systemic anti-Israel bias from ESG ratings.

Read about these and other developments at the Center in this month’s Brief. As always, we thank you for your tax-deductible donations and acknowledge that without you our work could not be done.

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin Discusses Jewish Identity and the Center’s Title VI complaint against SUNY New Paltz in CNN’s Anti-Semitism Special

“People today…don’t realize that Judaism is not just a religion….Judaism also has this sense of Jewish peoplehood,” explained Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin to Dana Bash on CNN’s ‘Rising Hate: Antisemitism in America’ special. “We’re this ethno-religion…. Jews share a common history, a common ancestry – and that history and that ancestry is completely rooted in the land of Israel.”

CNN also interviewed SUNY New Paltz student and Brandeis Center client Cassandra Blotner. Just days before the broadcast, the Brandeis Center announced that it had filed a federal complaint with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights on behalf of Blotner, another student named Ofek Preis and Jewish on Campus.

Both students were excluded from a sexual assault awareness group and then cyberbullied, harassed and threatened, over their Jewish and Israeli identities. “SUNY [New Paltz]…is permitting a hostile environment that marginalizes and excludes these Jewish…and Israeli sexual assault survivor students…[and] is also denying Jewish and Israeli survivors of sexual assault on campus equal access to the educational opportunities and services they need, on the basis of their shared ancestry, ethnicity and national origin in violation of Title VI,” wrote the Brandeis Center in the complaint.

“These women were shunned and isolated by the very people to whom they had turned to for support as sexual assault survivors, and they were excluded merely because they expressed pride in the Jewish people’s ethnic and ancestral connection to Israel,” stated Brandeis Center Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober.

Watch Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin
in CNN’s ‘Antisemitism in America’ special.

Brandeis Center Urges SEC to Act on Anti-Israel Bias in ESG Financial Ratings

The Brandeis Center, Jewish Federations of North America and the American Jewish Committee each urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to take action on anti-Israel bias in financial ratings.

Financial ratings firms that provide specialized ratings based on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors have been found to incorporate biased methodologies and sources that systematically produce worse ratings for Israeli companies and companies doing business related to Israel, potentially without full knowledge of the investors who rely on those ratings.

Brandeis Center Vice Chair and General Counsel L. Rachel Lerman has written extensively about anti-Israel bias documented in an ESG ratings product owned by Financial Services firm Morningstar.

“The new rulemaking will require transparency across the board, and we are asking the SEC specifically to require ESG-related funds that focus on the social aspect of ESG to tell investors how they derive ratings for such companies, how they check for and eliminate anti-Israel bias in their sources, and whether they include anti-Semitism on their human rights radar,” declared Lerman, regarding the Brandeis Center’s joint effort to urge the SEC to remove this bias from all ESG systems, not only Morningstar’s.

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus Criticizes BDS at Berkeley Law

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus criticized a pro-BDS bylaw adopted by a handful of student groups at Berkeley Law – in an article by J Weekly.

The bylaw, written by Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine, calls upon other student groups not to invite “speakers that have expressed and continued to hold views … in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

The students in this case, “are taking a step down a very ugly road,” stated Marcus. “Berkeley Law wouldn’t be Berkeley Law if students didn’t engage in a certain amount of wrongheaded political nonsense. This is different, because it’s not just a political stunt. It is tinged with anti-Semitism and anti-Israel national origin discrimination.”

Brandeis Center Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober Discusses OCR’s Decision to Open Investigation of Brandeis Center Complaint Against USC

Last month’s USC announcement – the fourth, concurrent U.S. investigation into campus anti-Semitism based on a Brandeis Center-filed complaint – dominated academic, Jewish and mainstream news. The USC complaint details anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination against Brandeis Center client Rose Ritch, who was effectively pushed out of her position as student government vice-president in 2020 due to her Jewish Zionist identity.

News sources continue reaching out to Brandeis Center Director of Legal Initiatives Denise Katz-Prober for insights and context about the case.

“We hope that universities will take note of this case, and we think that they are starting to get the message,” stated Brandeis Center Director of Legal Initiatives, Denise Katz-Prober to JewishPress.com.

“USC’s failure to acknowledge or respond to the form of discrimination that Rose Ritch experienced is, unfortunately, not uncommon,” Katz-Prober told Campus Reform. “When Jewish students, like Rose Ritch, are targeted for marginalization and exclusion from campus activities merely because they express pride in or support for the existence of a Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancient homeland, that is a form of unlawful discrimination, not a political debate.”

Charlotte TV Station Interviews Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus About Supreme Court Affirmative Action Case

LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus shared his insights about the historical context and significance of a Supreme Court case involving discriminatory admissions policies at Harvard and University of North Carolina.

“Universities first adopted the diversity framework, not because they wanted to have more Black or Hispanic students, but because they wanted to have fewer Jewish students,” Marcus explained. “Much of the way that universities continue to look at diversity is based on some of these building blocks that are actually very dubious in their historical background. Even if the current admissions officers have different ideas in mind, it probably shouldn’t be shocking that some of these diversity elements that were initially developed for exclusionary reasons are not quite as perfect as the higher education administrators would like us to believe.”

Earlier this year, the Brandeis Center and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) filed a joint amicus brief in support of Students for Fair Admissions’(SFFA) petition for certiorari, in which the parties argued that Harvard’s admissions plan was developed with the intent of limiting enrollment of Jewish undergraduate students and that it has had the continuing effect of excluding Asian Americans today.

Watch Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus discuss Supreme Court affirmative action case on Charlotte TV station

Marcus Published in Latest Issue of Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism

The Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism published a book review by Chairman Marcus in its spring edition.

Marcus’s article is a book review of ‘Key Concepts in the Study of Antisemitism’ – a collection of 21 essays that serves as a handbook to educate college instructors on the nature of anti-Semitism.

Marcus’s review highlights the increasing divide in anti-Semitism studies. The book’s editors argue that anti-Semitism must be studied within the broader context of different manifestations of evil. Marcus argues anti-Semitism is a unique phenomenon, rather than a manifestation of other evils.

Former Brandeis Center intern Hilary Miller co-published an article in the same edition with David Hirsh, titled ‘Durban Antizionism: Its Sources, Its Impact, and Its Relation to Older Anti-Jewish Ideologies.’ Editor-in-chief and law school professor Lesley Klaff serves on the Brandeis Center’s academic advisory board.

Recent Podcasts with President Lewin

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin was interviewed by Jason Greenblatt for his ‘The Diplomat’ podcast at Newsweek and by Hen Mazzig for his ‘Fresh Look’ podcast at the Israel on Campus Coalition.

Lewin discussed two historic cases she worked on, the Jerusalem passport case and the Brandeis Center’s lawsuit that defeated Ben & Jerry’s anti-Israel boycott. She also discussed Jewish identity and how the Brandeis Center uses civil rights laws to protect American Jews from discrimination.

At the ICC National Leadership Summit in August, Lewin explained why it is vital for Jewish college students to understand the protections afforded to them under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Students Create New Brandeis Center student chapter at NYU School of Law

Coming on the heels of several anti-Semitic incidents at NYU, students at NYU School of Law have started the latest Brandeis Center student chapter, Law Students Against Anti-Semitism – NYU Law Chapter of the Brandeis Center. The chapter will provide opportunities for students to educate and engage with the university community about civil rights protections for Jewish and Israeli students and using the law to fight anti-Semitism.

Don’t Miss Chairman Marcus’s and President Lewin’s Next Public Events

Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus will moderate a panel discussion on Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at the inaugural Education Law & Policy Conference, hosted by Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies and The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr and former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will serve as the event’s keynote speakers.

The Education Law & Policy Conference will examine the federal legal and policy issues surrounding American education. The conference will take place on Tuesday, September 20, 2022, at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, D.C. and will feature a welcome session, plenary panels, breakout sessions, lunch, and a closing speech followed by a reception. Registration is open to the public. Attendees for the in-person event have the option of obtaining CLE credit with their ticket purchase.

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin is the featured speaker for Hadassah New York’s webinar ‘Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism? on September 15.

Gone But Not Forgotten — Fresh Blog Posts from the Brandeis Center’s Summer Interns

The Brandeis Center’s summer interns may have finished their term, but their hard work continues to inform our supporters.

Josh Feinstein (UMD, May ‘23) penned a blog about President Lewin’s testimony for the New York City Council Committee on Higher Education about campus anti-Semitism. SUNY New Paltz student and Brandeis Center client Ofek Preis, and former NYU student Adela Cojab also provided powerful testimony at the hearing about their experiences with anti-Semitism on campus. And Rosemarie Goldstein (Wellesley College, May ‘24) detailed Chairman Marcus’s latest contribution to the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism.

Donate to the Brandeis Center

Sign up for our monthly Brandeis Brief and other messages from us

Forward this email to a friend

The Louis D. Brandeis Center
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1025, Washington, DC 20006You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center is a nonprofit organization supported by individuals, groups and foundations that share our concern about Jewish college students. Contributions are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. To support our efforts to combat campus anti-Semitism, please contact us at info@brandeiscenter.com

On June 30, Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin testified before the New York City Council Committee on Higher Education. Lewin, along with many others, spoke before the council to demonstrate the prevalence of anti-Semitism on college campuses and the threat that it poses to Jewish students all over the country. In addition to Lewin, numerous students including Adela Cojab and Ofek Preis bravely gave their own accounts of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist behavior that they had personally experienced on college campuses in the state of New York.

In her testimony, Lewin highlighted the fact that self-proclaimed ‘progressive’ spaces on campuses marginalize Jewish students. University administrators do not recognize the discrimination that is happening right under their noses: “The reason that anti-Semitism is increasing and not decreasing on these campuses is because university administrators are misdiagnosing the problem,” said Lewin.

Universities don’t recognize how Jewish Zionist students are being ostracized on campus. They mistakenly treat the marginalization of pro-Israel students as a speech issue. Time and time again, administrators choose to take a step back and do nothing when Jewish students are excluded, often claiming that the groups who are shunning the Jewish students are simply exercising their right to free speech, rather than acknowledging the harassment and discrimination that is taking place.

Lewin explained that Zionism is the glue that has held Jews together for millennia, even if not all Jews would describe themselves as Zionists: “Judaism is not only a religion,” she explained. “Jews also share a sense of Jewish peoplehood with a common ancestry and ethnicity.” Jews have been praying for the return to Jerusalem for centuries, and this shared sense of ethnic and ancestral identity, this “Zionism,” is as integral to the identity of many Jews as observing the Jewish Sabbath or keeping a kosher diet.

The majority of university administrators do not yet understand these facts about Jewish identity and anti-Semitism. Therefore, when Jewish students are forced to shed the Zionist component of their Jewish identity to participate on campus, administrators fail to take action to protect them.

For example, as SUNY New Paltz Israeli international student Ofek Preis described in her testimony before the NYCC hearing, she was excluded from an advocacy group that fights against sexual violence on campus because of her Israeli national origin and Jewish ethnic identities: “I am an Israeli student, a political science and sociology major, and a prominent member of advocacy and activist spaces on and off campus, and a survivor of sexual assault, who was denied the right to fight against rape culture as a result of anti-Zionism,” stated Preis.

After Preis reposted to her personal Instagram account an infographic expressing pride in the Jewish people’s ethnic and ancestral connection to Israel and refuting the claim that Israel is a colonial state, she was told that she was no longer welcome to participate in a student group dedicated to combatting sexual violence. Despite fighting against injustice her entire life, and being a sexual assault survivor herself, Preis was castigated as an enemy in the fight against oppression and cast out of the student group she had been part of. As a result of the harassment she faced, Preis spent the rest of her semester feeling isolated and fearful.

At the NYCC hearing, Preis echoed Lewin’s message that university administrators’ misdiagnosis of the problem was to blame: “This is the result of promoting dialogue instead of directly denouncing anti-Zionism. It is not a matter of difficult conversations, but an issue of hostility, isolation, and discrimination.”

Another student, NYU graduate Adela Cojab, described for the NYCC hearing how she took legal action against her former university for refusing to address incidents of campus anti-Semitism. Cojab filed a Tit l e VI complaint against NYU for “failing to protect the Jewish community against discrimination and harassment.” Since 2004, OCR guidance has clarified that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects members of faith based groups, including Jews, Sikhs and Muslims, from discrimination based on their ethnic or ancestral background.

During her time at NYU, Cojab experienced anti-Semitism when she saw that Zionism was equated to Nazism and racism by a governance council of minority students. When Jewish students wished to publish a response simply explaining why this was so offensive, they were told not to by mentors because it would “only make the problem grow.” Within just three months the problem grew significantly worse: there were anti-Israel boycott resolutions raised in student government, movements to boycott NYU’s Tel Aviv campus, harassment of Jewish students, and Israeli flags burned.

This all led to Cojab leaving her position on student government because she was being bullied: “Had that happened to any other minority group, the university would have responded,” claimed Cojab. According to her, the university was aware of the flag-burning incident, yet later gave an award to the very group that burned the Israeli flag.

This all circles back to Lewin’s point that Jewish students are held to a severe double-standard on college campuses. When a Jew is forced to shed the Zionist component of their Jewish identity, Lewin says that “it is comparable to demanding that a Catholic disavow the Vatican or a Muslim shed their connection to Mecca.”

Lewin’s testimony, along with those of Preis and Cojab, emphasize the need to hold universities accountable. When Jewish students are marginalized on campus, action needs to be taken, or the problem will simply worsen, like we saw on NYU’s campus. The Brandeis Center works to do just that and is always willing to listen to students who feel that they have experienced anti-Semitism.

Universities need to acknowledge the struggles of their Jewish students. As Lewin stated: “No community other than the Jews is being charged such a high price for admission, and excluding an individual in this manner on the basis of their identity is discrimination and has to be recognized as such.”

In a letter organized by the AMCHA Initiative, 69 organizations, including the Brandeis Center, urged the Department of Education to ensure that National Resource Center (NRC) faculty do not implement academic boycotts at universities. The letter, addressed to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, gave two examples of recent events held at the University of Michigan and New York University, both of which were organized and funded by Department of Education-designated Middle East Studies NRCs.

The letter notes that NRCs “were established by Title VI of the Higher Education Act in order to equip university students and faculty with a full and unbiased understanding of regions and countries vital to U.S. security. The federal legislation providing these NRCs with millions of taxpayer dollars stipulates that the funding is specifically intended ‘to promote access to research and training overseas, including through linkages with overseas institutions.”

An academic boycott, however, as the letter points out, calls for the exact opposite:

it seeks to deny access to research, training and education in and about the targeted country, and to break linkages with the targeted country’s educational institutions. And while faculty members certainly have the right to express support for BDS, including an academic boycott of Israel, were these NRC directors or any of their fellow faculty to implement the academic boycott at their centers in such a way as to restrict or limit the academic opportunities of their students or colleagues, their behavior would contravene the explicitly stated purpose of their federal funding.

The official guidelines of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) encourage faculty to “work toward shutting down study abroad programs in Israel and refuse to write recommendations for students who want to attend them; scuttle their colleagues’ research collaborations with Israeli universities and scholars; and cancel or shut down educational events organized by students or faculty featuring Israeli leaders or scholars, or that seek to ‘normalize’ Israel by presenting it in anything but a negative light.” Any NRC that adheres to these boycott strategies would be in violation of their federal funding requirements.

Overall, six of the 15 Middle East Studies NRCs have directors who have expressed public support for the academic boycott against Israel, and two others have directors who have called to shut down their university’s study abroad program in Israel. Additionally, all but one of the 15 NRCs have faculty members who support the academic boycott of Israel.

Supporting the academic boycott of Israel does not necessarily mean that the NRC directors or faculty will fulfill the PACBI guidelines for a boycott. However, six NRC directors signed a letter in 2014 that stated, “we pledge not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions.” Studies in 2016 and 2017 have shown that pro-BDS directors and faculty members are more likely to host events that either promote the BDS movement or host BDS speakers.

When applying for Title VI HEOA grant applications, these pro-BDS directors have stated that their programs offer educational and research opportunities to study in and about Israel, as well as linkages with Israeli institutions. The letter notes, “Were these same directors to implement the academic boycott they publicly espouse, they would be working to subvert the very opportunities and linkages they have promised their programs would provide, which would constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation of their programs on a federal grant application.”

The signatories to the letter emphasize that they “do not intend in any way to impede or suppress a faculty member’s freedom of speech or right to engage in a personal boycott. But were a faculty member to take steps to obstruct or prevent others from accessing opportunities to engage with overseas institutions through research or training, it would clearly violate the stated purpose of the law.”

The 69 organizations offered the following recommendations to the Department of Education to address this problem:

The Department of Education should issue a statement warning NRC directors and affiliated faculty that implementing an academic boycott of one of the countries in the NRC’s purview would be a direct subversion of the stated purpose of Title VI funding.
Area studies program directors applying for or renewing NRC or FLAS funding should be required to sign a statement affirming that neither they nor any of their program’s affiliated faculty will, as part of their academic responsibilities, implement an academic boycott of any of the countries within the purview of their program in such a way as to restrict or limit the academic opportunities of their students or colleagues.

President Beilock

This week, the Student Government Association of Barnard College passed a BDS referendum to divest from Israel, with 64 percent of students voting in favor of the measure. The BDS referendum was then, officially, rejected by Barnard’s administration, with Barnard President Sian Leah Beilock asserting that the referendum does not meet Barnard’s standards for discussion by the Board of Trustees.

The referendum, which began on the 70^th anniversary of Israel’s founding, was spearheaded by the BDS group Columbia University Apartheid Divest. The referendum had a record number of student participants, with over 1150 votes recorded. (Despite this number, it still constituted less than 30% of the student body.) The referendum seeks that the SGA petition Barnard to divest from eight companies which “profit from or engage in the State of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.” Students spoke out for and against the resolution, with Jewish student organizations such as Aryeh very vocally against the referendum. Aryeh released a statement following the vote where they highlighted the fact that the referendum was a “defeat for all students that pursue peace between Israelis and Palestinians, seek intellectually honest discourse about Israel and the conflict, reject anti-Semitism both in intent and effect, and value an inclusive community at Barnard.” There were, however, accusations that Zionist and Jewish groups were excluded from speaking opportunities. These accusations stem from the failure to give Jewish groups advance warning of the referendum, allowing them only “a day’s notice” in order to prepare. This issue was further exacerbated by “anti-normalization” approach taken by groups affiliated with BDS, whereby the students involved with those groups would purposefully refuse to discuss issues with students they felt to be pro-Israel.

The move for divestment at Barnard comes only weeks after New York University’s (NYU) April 9 decision to endorse BDS. The vote at NYU included language aimed at boycotting all “Zionist student clubs,” something that the Barnard vote does not do. The NYU vote singled out Realize Israel and TorchPAC, both of which are pro-Israel campus groups. The NYU vote also stated that a boycott of the Anti-Defamation League should be pursued, for the group’s “Zionist” affiliations. Both the NYU vote and the vote at Barnard were cloaked in the language of intersectionality, the belief that various social categorizations such as race, class, and gender are inextricably linked and cannot be discussed in a vacuum. This theory, which emphasizes the supposedly overlapping and interconnected nature of all forms of discrimination, is often used to conflate issues that are seemingly unrelated as a means of garnering more attention and support for them. At NYU, various student groups including the African student Union, the Asian American Women’s Alliance, the Black Students Union, College Libertarians, Divest for Climate Justice, and the Muslim Students Association created a coalition in support for divestment from Israel. The fact that none of these organizations has anything to do with Israel, nor does Israel fall anywhere in their stated rules, regulations, or goals, did not stop Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace from seeking their support for the BDS referendum.

While the vote was taking place at Barnard, the president of the campus Hillel, Talia Rubin, told The Forward that the Jewish students on campus were “exhausted,” and that open conversation on campus had been reduced by the “hostility” of the referendum. Pro-Israel groups have been quick to point out that the language of the divestment referendum accuses Israel of breaking international law, while refusing to address or provide counterarguments to that claim. The Barnard referendum was significant because Barnard recently became the first college in the country to divest from companies that deny climate change science. Opponents of the BDS measure feared this may lead the administration to adopt the BDS measure for similar reasons.

As of April 23^rd, however, the Barnard administration rejected the BDS referendum. Sian Leah Beilock, the president of Barnard College, sent out a letter calling the measure “inappropriate.” This letter followed a petition received by Barnard College containing the signatures of 2,000 Barnard alums, all urging the administration to reject BDS at Barnard. The letter sent out by Beilock stated that the BDS referendum failed to meet two standards necessary for its consideration by the Board of Trustees. The first standard was the failure of the referendum to facilitate free debate and discussion. The second standard listed was the lack of consensus regarding the referendum. Beilock pointed to the fact that “less than 30% of Barnard’s student body” had voted on the issue. The failure of BDS on Barnard’s campus was thanks to the administration’s quick and decisive action to block this stifling and bigoted movement. The large amount of students who voted in favor of the referendum should, however, be a testament for the continued need to fight back against this insidious movement.

Re-posted from Camera on Campus.

Anti-Israel demonstration in New York. (Tablet Magazine).

As the US Air Force C-17 left Afghan airspace, I allowed myself to relax for a brief moment. My year-long tour in Kabul, Afghanistan was over. Returning home, I thought of those fellow soldiers, including my Command Sergeant Major, who had not been so fortunate. In their service to the United States, they had been killed by the Taliban. In remembering them, I thought of the oath that we had all taken: to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Now, as a former US Army Captain and a third-year law student, I have had the opportunity to further study the Constitution and the cases that have expanded and narrowed its original amendments. Particularly with the First Amendment, I have wrestled with whether there should be limits on what can be said. The battles that I am currently fighting are no longer with bullets in Kabul, but with ideas in the classroom.

Since entering law school, I have witnessed the vitriol directed at pro-Israel and Zionist students. At my law school, only one side of the story is told. To challenge the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) agenda is to be ostracized amongst the general student body. In becoming the Chair of the Alliance for Israel (AFI) club, I have put myself at the center of these debates over free speech. I have fought their hate, and what I believe to be virulent anti-Semitism, by hosting pro-Israel and Zionist speakers at the law school.

These collective experiences of serving in the military and being a law student have made me a free speech absolutist. I despise the hateful rhetoric that SJP spews about Israel. I believe, however, that they have a right to voice their opinions, no matter how ignorant. This is because I know that when I bring pro-Israel speakers to campus, these groups would want nothing more than for my events to be shut down.

Free speech is a double-edged sword. I am, therefore, fearful of the undefined label of “hate speech” and its infinite ramifications. Such labels can be redirected to causes that I support.

Despite my beliefs regarding freedom of speech, there are, nevertheless, limits to what the First Amendment will protect. In the seminal United States Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court overturned the lower courts’ rulings that had found the defendant, an Ohio KKK chapter leader, guilty of violating the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act (OCSA). The defendant had been arrested after he gave a speech that degraded Jews and blacks. The Supreme Court held that:

“[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action (emphasis added).”

“Imminent” is the operative word. I do not call for UCLA to disinvite the 2018 National SJP Conference to be held on UCLA’s campus from November 16-18. Rather, it is imperative that UCLA and SJP understand the standard articulated in Brandenburg and put the appropriate protections in place to prevent any possibility of physical violence from occurring. This means that UCLA administrators and SJP National Conference organizers need to educate themselves on the past violence that has occurred after SJP rallies.

There are numerous cases of anti-Semitic incidents that resulted in physical violence. Many of these include documentation of SJP members physically assaulting pro-Israel and Zionist students.

For example, on April 27, 2018, an SJP protest against a pro-Israel event at New York University (NYU) turned violent when an SJP member “stole an Israel[i] flag [from pro-Israel students] and brought it to the [SJP] protesters. [The flag] was ripped, stomped on, defaced with pink chalk and then burned.” Also at the event, an SJP member “sneaked in during the singing of Hatikva, forcefully and hurtfully grabbed the microphone from the [pro-Israel student] who had been holding it, and shouted, ‘Free Palestine!’” The “SJP’s president explained the behavior of the protesters to Washington Square News saying, ‘We’re not going to let them stand by and support Zionism. Our point is to make being Zionist uncomfortable on the NYU campus.’”

*Anti-Israel demonstrator becoming physically violent at pro-Israel event at NYU (Realize Israel).*

This incident is only one in a series of documented physical assaults against pro-Israel and Zionist students. In opening its campus to the 2018 SJP National Conference, UCLA becomes an inviting location for such physical violence to occur. In viewing the Brandenburg standard, one can debate the imminence of such violence. What is more likely than not, however, is that in the wake of such SJP rallies, violence is more likely to occur.

In hosting this event, UCLA and the 2018 National SJP Conference should be held accountable for any physical violence that their conference attendees commit. Preparing for the worst, UCLA should have ample campus security in place to prevent SJP attendees from engaging in violent acts. UCLA should have designated protest areas. They should also have a zero-tolerance policy for any physical violence or destruction of property that occurs during the conference.

In addition, the 2018 National SJP Conference organizers need to understand that, yes, they can lie all they want about Israel and Zionism, but direct, immediate calls for physical violence are not legally protected. They should be held liable for any physical violence to Jewish, pro-Israel, or Zionist students and structures during and immediately following the 2018 National SJP Conference at UCLA. Once the line is crossed between hateful rhetoric, which is protected, and physical violence, which is not, campus authorities should react appropriately and arrest those physically violent offenders.

Contributed by Micah Q. Jones, a third-year law student at Northeastern University School of Law (NUSL). Before law school, Micah served over five years in the US Army. Micah is currently the chair of NUSL’s Alliance for Israel (AFI) club.

Originally published at JNS.org.