In a time of rising anti-Semitism across the United States, the Brandeis Center continues to take a strong stand against discrimination and harassment targeting Jewish individuals and communities. From Alyza Lewin’s powerful testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee to newly filed federal complaints and legal actions, the Brandeis Center is actively working to hold institutions accountable and ensure protections for Jewish students and citizens. This update highlights key developments, including investigations into civil rights violations, the Department of Education’s evolving role, and a troubling case of anti-Semitic discrimination at an Oakland café. Read on for more details on these critical efforts to combat anti-Semitism. 

In this issue: 

Investigations Opened into Federal Anti-Semitism Complaints, New Complaints Filed

The Brandeis Center filed three federal complaints with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against California State Polytechnic, Scripps College, and California’s Etiwanda School district alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

“The law and federal government recognize Jews share a common faith and they are a people with a shared history and heritage rooted in the land of Israel. Schools that continue to ignore either aspect of Jewish identity are becoming dangerous breeding grounds for escalating anti-Jewish bigotry, and they must be held accountable,” said Chairman Kenneth Marcus.

Later in the month, OCR announced it is opening investigations into complaints filed by the Brandeis Center against five schools: Yale University, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Scripps College, American University, and the Fulton County School District.

Denise Katz-Prober, director of legal initiatives at the Brandeis Center, commented that “the opening of these investigations does signal that… OCR [is] being active and forceful in addressing the anti-Semitism that’s plaguing so many campuses,” especially in contrast to the backlog of “languishing” Title VI complaints during the Biden administration.

 

Brandeis Center Blocks ALAA From Expelling Jewish and Allied Members Who Stood Up For Israel 

In response to legal action taken by the Brandeis Center, the United Auto Workers (UAW) Public Review Board ruled the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA) cannot expel four Nassau County Legal Aid attorneys who opposed the ALAA’s virulently anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas resolution. 

The UAW Public Review Board is an outside body established under the UAW constitution to be the final word in interpreting and enforcing the UAW’s constitution. The ALAA (UAW Local 2325) is based in New York. 

Parallel to appealing the ALAA’s expulsion efforts within the UAW’s constitutional process, the Brandeis Center is representing three of the Legal Aid attorneys in a federal lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. 

“Many ALAA members found the October 7 massacre of Jews exhilarating; they should find this rebuke from the UAW’s own outside review board sobering,” said Hon. Rory Lancman, the Brandeis Center’s Senior Counsel said in a statement. 

Chairman Kenneth Marcus added, “our federal lawsuit details how it is illegal to expel members who stand up for what’s right and oppose anti-Semitism in their union, and now the UAW’s own outside monitor has said that doing so violates the UAW’s own constitution. The board’s ruling is a major victory for union democracy, and, of course, a defeat for anti-Semitism. The Brandeis Center will defend victims of anti-Semitism wherever they are – on campuses, in public schools, in workplaces, or in unions.”

Following the announcement, the U.S. House Committee on Education & Workforce hailed the Brandeis Center’s efforts as a win for justice.

Despite Changes with Dept of Education, Efforts to Combat Anti-Semitism Remain Strong 

After President Trump officially signed an executive order eliminating the Department of Education, Kenneth

Marcus noted in JNS that “even with a reduced footprint, the U.S. Department of Education is clearly capable of handling anti-Semitism more effectively than it has in the past.” 

The move comes amidst significant pressure from the administration on universities, including recent announcements of the revocation of federal grants and threats of further funding cuts at Columbia unless they implement substantial reforms. In response to the announcements at Columbia, Marcus told the Washington Post, “this is the toughest stance we’ve seen from the federal government toward campus anti-Semitism ever… [it’s] simply unbelievable.” We are seeing the Trump administration “moving faster and punching harder” to effect change, Mr. Marcus told AP News, sending strong warning signals to schools around the country.

 

Alyza Lewin Testifies at Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing 

On March 5, Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing, “Never to be Silent: Stemming the Tide of Antisemitism in America,”the first convened specifically to address anti-Semitism since the terror attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023. 

In her opening testimony, Ms. Lewin emphasized, “what’s taking place on campus is not a good faith political debate. It is the vilification of Jews.” She highlighted how Jewish students across the country are being harassed, excluded, and targeted simply for expressing their Jewish identity, which for many Jews includes their ancestral connection to the land of Israel. Lewin stressed that universities must be held accountable for allowing environments where Jewish students feel unsafe, calling for stronger enforcement of protections and institutional consequences for schools that fail to act. Read more about her testimony in this blog post and watch her full opening testimony here: 

Erasive Anti-Semitism at Dickinson College 

In a powerful address at Dickinson College, Alyza Lewin explored the phenomenon of erasive anti-Semitism and how, to address it, we must first understand Jewish identity and how anti-Semitism works. 

“Today, Jews who define their identity as part of a people with a shared history and heritage rooted in the land of Israel, are often demonized as “Zionists,” treated as pariahs, and told that they are not welcome. 

It’s not possible to separate the ancestral history and heritage of the Jewish people from the land of Israel. Israel is where the identity of the Jewish people was cemented. To be a Zionist means you recognize and celebrate the Jewish people’s connection to one another — and the Jewish people’s deep-rooted tie to the land of Israel.”

Read the address in JNS here, or watch it below:

Man Kicked Out of Oakland Café for Being Jewish Sues Owner 

The Brandeis Center filed a lawsuit against the Jerusalem Coffee House on behalf of its client, a man who was ejected, along with his five-year-old son, because he is Jewish. This is the first lawsuit brought by the Brandeis Center’s recently launched Center for Legal Innovation.

Video footage shows the owner of the coffee shop verbally attacking the plaintiff, ordering him to leave for wearing a “violent hat,” which depicted a white Jewish Star. In a statement, Senior Counsel Omer Wiczyk said, “we look forward to educating the Defendants — and anyone that shares their distorted views — in a court of law. In the United States of America, a business cannot refuse to serve someone because they are Jewish… the fact that this needs to be said in 2025 is a frightening reminder of the growing anti-Semitism that far too many have experienced in recent years.” 

February has been a short but busy and impactful month for the Brandeis Center. We proudly launched the Center for Legal Innovation, designed to advance legal strategies that protect civil rights and combat all forms of anti-Semitism. We are getting started by representing a father who faced anti-Semitic discrimination while he was with his son at a California coffee shop. Also this month, we secured an important settlement in our case against Santa Ana Public Schools, which are now prevented from teaching anti-Semitic ethnic studies material. Experts from the Brandeis Center continue to educate the community to ensure that Jewish and Israeli individuals understand their rights and where they can turn to for support. You can catch up on past events or join us for the next event in your area.

In this issue:

The Brandeis Center Launches Public Interest Law Firm to Specialize in Anti-Semitism Litigation
A new public interest litigation group within the Brandeis Center, the Center for Legal Innovation (CLI), will use the law to combat all forms of anti-Semitism, such as anti-Semitism that occurs in such sectors as the workplace, housing, healthcare, public accommodations, government services, unions, academia, and corporations. 

“The American Jewish community needs a public interest law firm that takes litigation efforts beyond education-focused Title VI complaints to a host of other areas where Jews are being unfairly and illegally discriminated against and harassed. This means standing up for individual victims as well as going after groups, companies, and organizations that are funding, organizing, and enabling illegal anti-Semitic activity. We have learned from history that we cannot sit idly by. The law is on our side, and we will use it against those threatening Jewish people’s constitutional rights,” shared Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. 

CLI is also guided by an expert advisory board, and its litigators include former criminal prosecutors, heads of prominent litigation departments, and leading experts in constitutional and civil rights law.

 

Oakland Father Suing Coffee Shop Over Anti-Semitic Discrimination


In one of CLI’s first cases, the Brandeis Center is representing a Jewish father who, along with his 5-year-old son, was kicked out of an Oakland café for wearing a Star of David hat. The Brandeis Center is preparing to file a lawsuit against the Jerusalem Coffee House, alleging civil rights violations on behalf of plaintiff Jonathan Hirsch. As Senior Counsel Omer Wiczyk stated, “This is America. You don’t get to refuse service to Jews.”

Santa Ana Public Schools Prevented from Teaching Anti-Semitic Ethnic Studies

As part of a settlement that resolves the lawsuit brought by the Brandeis Center and partner organizations, Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) will cease instruction of courses that contained false and damaging narratives about Israel and the Jewish people, including anti-Semitic content. 

“Ethnic studies should never become a vehicle for sneaking dangerous, anti-Semitic materials into our schools. That is the law, plain and simple, and we’re glad to have stopped this in Santa Ana schools” said Brandeis Center Vice Chair L. Rachel Lerman.

Marci Miller, Director of Legal Investigations, added, “we hope this is a cautionary tale to all the districts in California and anyone else who’s hoping to infuse ethnic studies with antisemitism, especially if they’re doing it in secret.” The Brandeis Center thanks the partnership from ADL, AJC, StandWithUs, and Covington & Burling LLP on this important case.

 

The Brandeis Center Commends OCR Investigations into Anti-Semitism
 The Brandeis Center applauded the announcement by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that it has proactively launched investigations into anti-Semitism at five higher education campuses. 

“This is exactly the right step to be taking and the right time to be taking it. The administration is sending a clear message to the higher education community that the U.S. Department of Education is prioritizing the current anti-Semitism crisis,” said Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman of the Brandeis Center and the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights who ran OCR for Presidents Bush and Trump. “Rather than sitting back and waiting for complaints to pile up, federal investigators are finally doing their jobs: identifying colleges that need to be investigated, and taking firm, public measures where needed. The cavalry has arrived. The Brandeis Center has been urging this approach since October 7, 2023, and we were repeatedly disappointed that the prior administration failed to accept our recommendation.” 

OCR announced its investigations will target a variety of universities, both public and private, ivies and non-ivies, from geographically diverse regions. Some, like UC Berkeley and Columbia University, are clearly ripe for investigation following public attention to the rampant and ongoing anti-Semitic activity on those campuses. Other universities that OCR is investigating have remained under the public radar which underscores not only the pervasive nature of campus anti-Semitism, but also OCR’s attention to Jewish students throughout the country, at all universities, not just a handful of prominent ones. The Brandeis Center is encouraged to see the Trump administration take early, affirmative steps that reach beyond the Biden administrations reactive responses to OCR complaints. 

Upcoming Event: Stand Up to Anti-Semitism in Brooklyn Public Schools


On Tuesday, March 12 at 6:00 PM, join attorneys from the Brandeis Center’s new Center for Legal Innovation, along with Councilwoman Inna Vernikov, to learn about your rights and pro-bono resources.  With the rise in anti-Semitism, far too many students and their families have been victims of anti-Semitic discrimination, whether in schools or outside them. The lawyers at the Center for Legal Innovation, a non-profit organization recently assembled as part of the Brandeis Center’s work to combat anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment, are available to provide pro-bono legal support and counsel to victims of anti-Semitism and to educate students about their rights under the law.  SIGN UP HERE to join us for a meeting about anti-Semitism in Brooklyn public schools and to learn about the resources and support available to you. This event is open to students, parents, or others affiliated with any Brooklyn, NY public schools. 

Alyza Lewin at Touro Law Center

Earlier this month, Brandeis Center’s President Alyza Lewin spoke at Touro Law Center’s two-day symposium on “Academics, Lawyers & Government – Who’s Leading Higher Education in the 21st Century?” In a panel about discrimination in higher education, Lewin offered remarks on anti-Semitism on college campuses and how the growing problem has impacted students today. Watch her full remarks here:

Only one month into the new year, we are already attacking anti-Semitism with renewed energy: holding one of the most prestigious universities accountable and thereby setting a new standard for other institutions to follow; ensuring other professional sectors, like financial services and legal aid, eliminate bias against Jews and Zionists; and defending the language we need to institutionalize to fight anti-Semitism across America.

In this issue:

2024 Year in Review

In 2024, the Brandeis Center fought for the civil rights of Jewish people and defended students on college campuses, children in K-12 education, and others across America who faced anti-Semitism. We held universities and administrators accountable to protect Jewish students, reached settlements that will ensure safer spaces for Jews, and educated groups ranging from local advocates to leaders in our federal government on the pernicious nature of anti-Semitism and how we must fight it.

We invite you to look back at our 2024 year in review: 

This is the default image

2024 EOY Video

Harvard Agrees to Settle Title VI Litigation with the Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education 

On January 21, the Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education announced that they reached an agreement to resolve their claims against Harvard University. As part of the settlement, Harvard agreed to implement a series of steps, building on

measures that Harvard has undertaken over the past year as a part of its commitment to combating anti-Semitism. Harvard and the Brandeis Center look forward to working together in these efforts.

In a federal lawsuit filed last May, the Brandeis Center alleged Harvard left “cruel anti-Semitic bullying, harassment, and discrimination” unaddressed for years before and after the Hamas attacks. Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center, expressed optimism about the settlement, sharing that “we are heartened that Harvard has agreed to take numerous important steps necessary to creating a welcoming environment for Jewish students.”

Legal Aid Attorneys Fight to Continue Suit Over Union’s Anti-Semitic Discrimination

In 2024, the Brandeis Center filed a federal District Court complaint against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, UAW Local 2325 (ALAA) and individual union officials for undertaking acts to expel and discipline two Jewish and one Non-Jewish ally from the union – in retaliation for their lawsuit opposing the ALAA’s anti-Semitic discriminatory practices manifested in the now infamous ALAA resolution attacking Israel soon after the October 7 terror attacks.

This month, the Brandeis Center filed a response motion on behalf of the plaintiffs, asking the judge to deny a motion filed by the union to dismiss the suit.

Rory Lancman, Director of Corporate Initiatives and Senior Counsel, emphasized that the plaintiffs are “not backing down,” adding that “three courageous legal services attorneys, two Jewish and one Christian ally, stood up for themselves, their Jewish clients, and, indeed, the true values of their union itself, to oppose

a fervor of anti-Semitism that engulfed the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys since October 7th, for which the union tried to expel them. As our recent filing illustrates, we are confident that federal labor law and federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws are on their side.” The legal aid attorneys are represented by Lancman and Paul Eckles, Senior Litigation Counsel at the Brandeis Center.

Morningstar Removes Anti-Israel Bias from ESG Ratings

Following extensive advocacy from Jewish and pro-Israel groups, including the Brandeis Center, financial services firm Morningstar implemented changes to remove anti-Israel bias that influenced its ESG investment ratings. For years, the Brandeis Center and its partners have called for reforms to ensure objective, reliable, and useful financial products. As a result, Morningstar has removed anti-Israel bias in Morningstar’s ESG product, following an expert report outlining comprehensive guidelines. The Center’s Rachel Lerman, who worked directly with Morningstar executives, says, “We salute Morningstar for its efforts to make its product more objective and reliable, and we look forward to persuading others in the finance industry to follow suit.” Learn more about the changes in JNS.

Lessons Learned from the Legal Battle Against Campus Anti-Semitism

In the latest issue of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance’s Journal, Brandeis Center president Alyza Lewin outlined her lessons learned from the legal battle against campus anti-Semitism, including the lesson that what is taking place on campus (and beyond) is not a good-faith political debate, but rather the vilification, marginalization, and shunning of Jews. Read all of her lessons learned here.

Defining Anti-Semitism: When Criticism of Israel Becomes Anti-Semitism

When does criticism of Israel cross the line into anti-Semitism? How do we define anti-Semitism, and why does it matter? In this panel discussion, Brandeis Center president Alyza Lewin speaks in support of adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, and what’s really happening when we hear people scapegoat Jews today. This discussion is moderated by Ben Sales (JTA) and also joined by Rabbi Jill Jacobs and Prof. Susannah Heschel who have supported the Jerusalem Declaration and Nexus definitions.

Watch the full conversation here: 

This is the default image

Defining Anti-Semitism with Alyza Lewin

Reprinted with permission from the September 4, 2024 issue of New York Law Journal. © [2024] ALM Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Authored by Brandeis Center Director of Corporate Initiatives and Senior Counsel Rory Lancman.

Courts are beginning to render decisions in the wave of cases filed following universities’ widespread failure to protect Jewish students from discrimination after the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel unleashed a torrent of Jew-hatred on college campuses.

The early verdict is encouraging: courts aren’t buying into the widely-abused canard that these protests are merely anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic—a mostly nonsensical construct that might help anti-Semites sleep better at night but which can rarely withstand rational, let alone legal, scrutiny.

While not the final legal word on the subject, three recent federal district court decisions to one degree or another accept the proposition that for the Jewish plaintiffs in question Zionism is an integral component of Jewish identity. This notion is just obvious to most American Jews, who have a deep religious and ethnic connection to the modern state of Israel. As the Pew Research Center found in its study, “Jewish Americans in 2020,” 80% of American Jews say caring about the state of Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them; nearly 60% say they personally feel an emotional attachment to Israel and follow news about Israel at least somewhat closely; and nearly half of American Jewish adults have visited Israel. But it is important that our legal system recognize this essential aspect of Jewish identity.

My colleague at the Brandeis Center for Human Right Under Law, Alyza Lewin, in Zionism – The Integral Component Of Jewish Identity That Jews Are Historically Pressured To Shed, Israel Affairs, 26(3), 330–347 (2020), has explained the connection between Jewish identity and Zionism as follows:

“This determination to return to Zion is the glue that has kept Jews connected for millennia. For centuries Jews have not only prayed facing Jerusalem, they have prayed to return to Jerusalem. ‘L’Shana Haba’ah B’Yerushalayim’ ‘Next Year in Jerusalem’ is heard each year at the Passover Seder and again at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. Jewish prayer contains a daily explicit appeal for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and for God to ‘bring us back in peace from the four quarters of the earth and lead us upright to our land.’ At a Jewish wedding ceremony, it is customary to break a glass in memory of Jerusalem and swear not to ‘forget thee O Jerusalem . . .’ Even in times of great joy, the Jews recall the destruction of Jerusalem and express the desire to return and rebuild Jerusalem.

Judaism and the Land of Israel are completely intertwined. Over half of the 613 commandments in the Pentateuch are connected to the Land of Israel and can only be fulfilled in the Land of Israel. These commandments relate not only to agriculture in Israel but also to the life of the Nation of Israel in the land. They pertain to topics as varied as the Jewish court system (the Sanhedrin), Jewish kings, the laws of war, and activities in the Jewish Temple. Similarly, over 70 percent of the Talmud relates to Jewish laws that are connected to the Land of Israel. Judaism as described in the Pentateuch and the Talmud assumes Jewish self-determination and envisions a Jewish nation state, complete with a Jewish government, army, court system, welfare and tax structure.

Zionism is as integral a part of Jewish identity as observing the Jewish Sabbath or adhering to kosher dietary rules.”

Thus in mid-August a federal judge in the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction in Frankel v. Regents of Univ. of California, 2024 WL 3811250 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2024), prohibiting UCLA from discriminating against its Jewish students whose Zionism is a part of their Jewish religious identity. (Technically, the injunction is applied against the specifically identified defendants who are Regents of the University of California and were sued in their official capacity, following Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).)

Specifically in Frankel, three Jewish students claimed that the organizers of the anti-Israel encampment on UCLA’s quad established a system of physically blocking Zionist students from entering or crossing the quad to get to class in an adjacent building or access the school library. They did this by erecting wood and metal barriers around the encampment and interrogating the Zionist beliefs of those seeking to cross through it. Those deemed sufficiently anti-Zionist were issued wristbands allowing them to pass through the encampment; those failing the test were blocked from traversing the quad.

The three Jewish students asserted numerous claims, including that their Zionism is a religious obligation (as the court put it, “Plaintiffs here assert that supporting the Jewish state of Israel is their sincerely held religious belief”) for which UCLA could not treat them unequally compared to other students, i.e., UCLA cannot allow Jewish students on account of their Zionism to be denied access to classes, programs, and services that are accessible and available to other students, without violating the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.

Each of the students explained in their complaint and in their separate declarations in support of their preliminary injunction request how their religious belief compels—is inseparable from—their Zionism. They describe their participation in core Jewish religious practices, including, for example, observing the sabbath, celebrating Jewish holidays, and attending synagogue services. And they describe their connection to Israel, including the role of Israel in so much of Jewish ritual observance, and their visits to Israel. One plaintiff stated in his declaration, “For me, Judaism is synonymous with supporting Israel. To be a faithful Jew means to support the right of Israel to exist.” Another said, “I consider support for Israel to be both a religious obligation and part of my ethnic cultural identity. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience forswear Israel and its right to exist.”

UCLA was smart enough not to challenge the students on the religious roots of their Zionism, that is, to argue that the anti-Zionism displayed and practiced on its quad is separable from anti-Semitism.

However, in an amicus brief opposing the preliminary injunction, the organization Faculty for Justice in Palestine (“FJP”) jumped headlong into the fray waving the banner against recognizing the encampment’s anti-Zionism for the anti-Semitism that it was. Its principal argument was that some of the encampments most strident participants were Jewish themselves, and thus how can a campaign that includes some Jews be anti-Semitic when it excludes other Jews?

The answer was as obvious to the court as it is to the vast majority of Jews for whom a deep an inextricable connection to Jewish self-determination in the land of Israel is embedded in their Jewish identity: just because some Jews renounce an independent Jewish state doesn’t make it legal to abuse those Jews who refuse to, any more than it would make it ok to discriminate against Jews who keep kosher or observe the sabbath or fast on Yom Kippur based on the fact that some Jews don’t. Simply put, the sliver of world Jewry which is anti-Zionist for their own obscure religious or political reasons—who oppose not merely the policies of this or that Israeli government, but the very idea of a Jewish state in the historic Jewish homeland—cannot delegitimize the contrary belief of all the rest of the world’s Jews and thus deny those Jews the equal protection of the law.

Or as the court’s opening paragraph in its preliminary injunction decision resolved the question in now legendary fashion:

“In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.”

With that, the court ordered UCLA to not offer classes, programs, and services to any students that are not equally accessible to Jewish Zionist students.

The truth is, Zionism’s centrality to Jewish identity isn’t merely “religious,” as examined in the UCLA case, but is a pillar of Jewish peoplehood that anti-discrimination laws protect on the basis of a shared Jewish ancestry or ethnicity (or on a particular statute’s expansive definition of “race”).

The week previous to the court’s decision in the UCLA case, another federal judge sitting across the country in Massachusetts decided that Harvard University, too, could be held liable for violating the main federal anti-discrimination law protecting students against anti-Semitism, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for violating its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in enforcing its own rules, based on the “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment” described by Jewish students in the complaint which was rooted almost entirely in attacks on these Jewish students’ Zionism, which Harvard failed to properly address. Kestenbaum v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 2024 WL 3658793, at *5 (D. Mass. Aug. 6, 2024).

The court cited from the complaint some individual components of the cumulatively hostile environment based in anti-Zionism that included student groups the day after the October 7th attack declaring “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence”; the harassment and physical assault of Jewish students at a “die-in” protest which resulted in two anti-Israel protestors being prosecuted in Massachusetts state court with assault and battery and civil rights act charges; campus anti-Israel protestors regularly chanting and intimidating Jewish students with slogans such as “from the river to the sea,” “free Palestine,” “globalize the intifada,” “long live the Intifada,” and (in Arabic) “water to water, Palestine will be Arab”; a plan announced by a Harvard Law School professor to focus a final exam in torts on the war in Israel; and the vandalizing of posters identifying and calling for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

While the complaint, and the court, did cite examples of classic non-Zionist related anti-Semitism (a reference to a Jewish student’s nose being “crooked” among other anti-Semitic messages on the Harvard “Sidechat” app), most of the blatantly anti-Semitic conduct cited occurred in the framework of anti-Zionist themed attacks on Jewish students.

Unlike in the UCLA case, the Jewish students in the Harvard case chose not to frame their non-negotiable commitment to Zionism in strictly religious terms, and the Harvard Court didn’t do so for them. Indeed, the complaint relied heavily on decades of Department of Education policy and a presidential executive order that brings Jewish students under the protection of Title VI by virtue of their shared ancestry (their ethnicity), since “religion” is not a protected category under Title VI. See e.g., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Enforcement Kenneth L. Marcus, “Dear Colleague Letter” (Sep. 13, 2004); Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon, “Dear Colleague Letter“ (Aug. 24, 2023); Assistant Attorney General Thomas E Perez, “Letter to Russlynn H. Ali” (Sep. 8, 2010); U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Questions and Answers on Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti-Semitism) and OCR’s Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon, “Dear Colleague Letter” (Nov. 7, 2023); Exec. Order No. 13899, 2019.

The Harvard decision is consistent with one issued by the same court in favor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) just a few weeks earlier in StandWithUs Ctr. for Legal Just. v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 2024 WL 3596916 (D. Mass. July 30, 2024), where Jewish students described essentially similar anti-Semitic conduct rooted in anti-Zionism, but where the court concluded that the complaint’s allegations against MIT, unlike those made against Harvard, failed to demonstrate MIT’s deliberate indifference to addressing the unlawful anti-Semitic hostile environment on campus, as Title VI claims require.

But make no mistake: the court didn’t dismiss the Jewish students’ anti-Semitism claims over any quibbling about the anti-Semitic nature of the anti-Zionist conduct described in the complaint:

“The court adds some concluding thoughts. The pain and hurt felt by plaintiffs and the Jewish and Israeli students that they seek to represent is genuine and fully understandable. But at bottom, the fault attributed to MIT is its failure to anticipate the bigoted behavior that some demonstrators—however sincere their disagreement with U.S. and Israeli policies—would exhibit as events unfolded. The transgressors were, after all, mostly MIT students whom the school (perhaps naively) thought had internalized the values of tolerance and respect for others – even those with whom one might disagree—that a modern liberal university education seeks to instill. To fault MIT for what proved to be a failure of clairvoyance and a perhaps too measured response to an outburst of ugliness on its campus would send the unhelpful message that anything less than a faultless response in similar circumstances would earn no positive recognition in the eyes of the law.”

These early, somewhat preliminary, federal district court decisions in Title VI campus discrimination cases accepting that primarily anti-Zionist conduct is anti-Semitic in the contexts presented are consistent with prior decisions by regulators, such as the Department of Education’s determination last year that the University of Vermont improperly failed to investigate a variety of anti-Semitic incidents rooted in the perpetrators’ hostility to “Zionism,” and to the Jewish victims’ status as “Zionists,” U.S. Dept. of Educ., Office for Civil Rights, Complaint No. 01-22-2002, The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, Resolution Letter (Apr. 3, 2023), and the Department of Labor’s guidance on enforcing its “Legal Protections for Religious Liberty in the Workplace” regulations, which explicitly recognizes the connection between Jewish identity and a connection to Israel. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Opinion Letter re Legal Protections for Religious Liberty in the Workplace, 41 C.F.R. § 60-50.2, Jan. 8, 2021.

They likewise align with a recent federal court decision in Landa v. Univ. of Maryland, Coll. Park, 2022 WL 2905094, at *7 (D. Md. July 22, 2022), applying Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects employees from anti-Semitism, holding that punishing an employee for her Zionist beliefs and advocacy establishes a claim of religious discrimination where the employee asserts that “Zionism is a core and fundamental part of her Jewish religious identity” and that “her Zionism is part and parcel of her Judaism.”

They also align with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism (the “IHRA Definition”) and its contemporary examples to the extent they might be useful in assessing evidence of discriminatory intent, including most obviously “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” Pursuant to presidential executive order No. 13899 (2019), the IHRA Definition is, for all intents and purposes, the law of the land when it comes to Title VI enforcement. (And it is arguably presumptively applicable to Title VII enforcement in that why would different sections of the same act apply different analyses to anti-Semitism claims. The IHRA Definition has also been adopted by numerous state and local jurisdictions.

All of these decisions, regulations, and orders are a welcome affirmation of the law’s recognition of Zionism as a core Jewish identity and a repudiation of the sophistry deployed to reflexively separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism and deny Jewish students, employees, and others the protection of anti-discrimination laws.

Rory Lancman is director of corporate initiatives and senior counsel at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Summer has not slowed the Brandeis Center (LDB) down. In August, LDB sued the U.S. Department of Education for unlawfully dismissing LDB’s Title VI complaint against the University of Pennsylvania only weeks after opening an anti-Semitism investigation. LDB also sued the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA) Union for retaliating against Jewish and Non-Jewish members opposing its anti-Semitic practices. And LDB filed a brief opposing UC Berkeley’s motion to dismiss our lawsuit against UC Berkeley over its “longstanding, unchecked spread of anti-Semitism.”

Brandeis Center Sues the U.S. Dept. of Education

The Brandeis Center and its membership organization, Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE), filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for failing to follow its own procedures in dismissing the Brandeis Center’s November 2023 complaint against the University of Pennsylvania for fostering an environment of anti-Semitism on its campus – an abdication of its responsibility to thoroughly investigate instances of egregious anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination that occur in potential violation of OCR’s anti-discrimination standards and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“By failing to follow its own administrative procedures, in violation of its own stated mission of ‘vigorous enforcement of civil rights,’ the Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Education overall have not only shown a blatant disregard for the wellbeing of Jewish students at the University of Pennsylvania, but for the due process entitled to every American who seeks relief from discrimination in educational institutions,” declared Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Jewish students at UPenn and many other college campuses across the country increasingly continue to face an egregious amount of anti-Semitism, particularly after the Oct. 7 massacre. OCR’s decisions have crippled these students’ ability to seek remedy from these hostilities and allows certain colleges and universities to continue ignoring or even fostering anti-Semitism on their campus.”

Brandeis Center Sues Association of Legal Aid Attorneys Union

The Brandeis Center and law firm Lieb at Law filed a federal District Court complaint against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, UAW Local 2325 (“the ALAA”) and individual union officials for undertaking acts to expel and otherwise discipline two Jewish and one Non-Jewish ally from the union, in retaliation for their lawsuit opposing the ALAA’s anti-Semitic discriminatory practices manifested in the now infamous ALAA resolution attacking Israel soon after the October 7 terror attacks.

The resolution opposed by the plaintiffs was so vile that several non-profit legal services providers employing ALAA’s members denounced it as anti-Semitic and unrepresentative of their values, including plaintiffs’ employer, the Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, as well as The Legal Aid Society and the New York Legal Assistance Group.

“Zionism is integral to Jewish identity, but plaintiffs – proud unionists who have dedicated their professional lives to serving poor and disadvantaged clients – didn’t need to be Zionists, or in one case, even Jewish, to understand that anti-Semitism is antithetical both to their obligations as lawyers and to the mission of a union responsible for representing the interests of all its members,” proclaimed Brandeis Center Director of Corporate Initiatives and Senior Counsel Rory Lancman.

Brandeis Center Opposes UC Berkeley’s Motion to Dismiss Suit

LDB and its membership subsidiary JAFE filed an opposition brief in response to UC Berkeley motion to dismiss LDB’s lawsuit over the university’s “longstanding, unchecked spread of anti-Semitism.”

“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,” wrote LDB in its opposition brief.

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 anti-Semitism in the suit, including a tent encampment and the blockade of a gate on campus. Prior to the school’s attempt to dismiss the suit, LDB expanded its complaint to include even more anti-Semitic activity on campus, which UC Berkeley still has not addressed.

“Amazingly, the UC Berkeley regents have the nerve to claim that they shouldn’t be held accountable because they haven’t had enough time to investigate the situation,” said Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus.

“They got the facts and the law wrong,” stated LDB General Counsel L. Rachel Lerman, who added that it is “abundantly clear” the plaintiffs have valid claims and UC Berkeley is “mistaken” in its argument. With anti-Semitic activity on campus likely to escalate once classes resume next month, Lerman explained that the court cannot give the school even more time to pursue its ineffective strategies. Pointing to comments made by UC President Michael Drake in November 2023 stating that students have faced “outright violence,” Lerman said: “Usually you would expect an immediate response at that point.”

Alyza Lewin Features in Touro University Webinar

Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin was among the featured panelists in Touro University’s Touro Talks 2024 Distinguished Lecture Series, “Antisemitism on College Campuses and Beyond.”

This is the default image

View President Lewin’s conversation with U.S. District Judge, Honorable Roy K. Altman, Touro University President Dr. Alan Kadish, and ‘Touro Talks’ Director Nahum Twersky.

LDB Holds Capitol Hill Policy Briefing on Disturbing Trend: Retaliation Against Jewish Whistleblowers Exposing Campus Anti-Semitism

The Brandeis Center hosted a July 10 Capitol Hill policy briefing titled “Retaliation Against Jewish Students and Parents: How Counter-complaints and Baseless Accusations are Being Weaponized to Silence Jewish Voices on Campus.” The event highlighted disturbing accounts of anti-Semitism alongside troubling and derelict administrative responses. Brandeis Center Board Member Tevi Troy served as moderator, and Brandeis Center Senior Counsel Mark Goldfeder, Staff Attorney Deena Margolies, and Staff Attorney Ben Alkon all presented as panelists.

Emory and American University students, and the parent of a child enrolled in the Berkeley Unified School District shared their personal experiences with university administrators – who were indifferent to campus anti-Semitism and allowed baseless counter-complaints against the Jewish students to proceed.

In her concluding remarks, Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin explained that the experiences shared by the student and parent panelists are not isolated instances but are emblematic of a systematic effort to delegitimize and chill claims of anti-Semitism. She stressed the important responsibility universities have to recognize and dismiss such malicious complaints and highlighted the definition of anti-Semitism as a vital tool for distinguishing between good-faith political debates and anti-Semitism.

This is the default image

Read more about the policy briefing from Brandeis Center Intern Nicole Hirschkorn and watch the recorded briefing here.

Brandeis Center Hires Senior Litigator Kami Z. Barker

Accomplished trial attorney, disability policy advisor, and former intergovernmental lobbyist Kami Z. Barker joins the Brandeis Center as its newest senior litigator as part of its continued expansion.

“The Brandeis Center is happy to welcome Kami and looks forward to seeing her contributions to fighting the onslaught of anti-Semitism in our educational systems,” said LDB Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus. “Kami is joining our team when the demand for our legal services is higher than ever,” said Brandeis Center President Alyza D. Lewin.

“It’s my privilege to join the Brandeis Center’s fight to ensure that no one is forced to tolerate hate speech on campus or in the workforce,” affirmed Ms. Barker.

In response to the growing demand for our services, the Brandeis Center continues to expand its team, initiatives, and policy-driven work. LDB will continue to hire legal and other staff throughout 2024. Professionals with strong experience and interest in joining LDB’s efforts to combat anti-Semitism are encouraged to watch the opportunities section of LDB’s website – and subscribe to the organization’s mailing list.

Kenneth Marcus to Feature in American Jewish University Webinar July 30: “Using Law to Fight Antisemitism on College Campuses”

Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus will feature in an American Jewish University webinar on July 30, exploring the utility of using Title VI and other civil rights laws to fight anti-Semitism on college campuses.

The event is free, and we encourage you to register for what will surely be an engrossing conversation between Chairman Marcus and AJU President Jeffrey Herbst.

Brandeis Center Interns

The Brandeis Center’s summer interns have been busy writing about the latest developments in the fight against anti-Semitism. Jonah Feuerstein authored two new blog posts chronicling the testimony of LDB clients before Congress. Nicole Hirschkorn authored two more posts, one detailing LDB’s latest policy briefing, and another covering the recently issued “Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism,” to which the U.S. is a party. Eli Goldstein authored the press release announcing the hiring of Kami Z. Barker.

The Brandeis Center is Hiring

The Brandeis Center is hiring for multiple full-time positions:

Duties, qualifications, and compensation are listed in the Opportunities section of our website.

If you meet the qualifications and are passionate about our mission to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all, we want to hear from you. Interested candidates should send resumes and cover letters by electronic mail to info@brandeiscenter.com. For the attorney roles, we suggest also including a writing sample and list of references.

Published by New York Post on 7/9/24; Story by Carl Campanile

A Jewish civil rights group is suing the union repping taxpayer-funded Legal Aid lawyers for allegedly retaliating against three members who objected to its antisemitic practices.

The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys initiated proceedings to expel the three Nassau County members — Ilana Kopmar, Diane Clarke and Isaac Altman — after they filed a lawsuit last year to block the union from passing a one-sided pro-Hamas resolution that only condemned Israel for the war.

The union’s hate-filled resolution also supported a boycott movement against Israel — which only invaded Gaza after the Palestinian terror group Hamas launched a sneak massacre on the Jewish state Oct. 7, killing more than 1,200 people, mostly innocent civilians.

Both sides are still at war, with Israel unleashing devastating blows on the Gaza Strip, killing thousands of civilians and displacing hundreds of thousands more as Hamas refuses to surrender.

The union approved the divisive resolution in December, with 1,067 votes in favor to 570 opposed.

The move was condemned by the union’s main employer, the Legal Aid Society, which receives hundreds of millions of dollars in city and state funds to provide free legal services to poor criminal defendants and other needy New Yorkers.

“Anti-Semitism in a union isn’t any less objectionable than anti-Semitism on a college campus, in a public school, or at a workplace,” said Ken Marcus, chairman of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, whose group Tuesday filed the lawsuit in Manhattan federal court against ALAA, Local 2325 of the United Auto Workers, and 28 individual union officers and members.

The plaintiffs said the resolution approved by the union and statements and other messages on its internal email boards reeked of Jew-hatred, including “River to the Sea” posts construed as calling for destroying the state of Israel.

The resolution and messages also included support for Hamas that ignored the terror group’s attack; antisemitic tropes such as saying “Jewish donations” caused the Legal Aid Society and other employers to denounced the resolution; claims that Jewish ALAA members have dual loyalty to Israel; questioning of the ability of Jewish lawyers to represent minority clients; and even blaming Israel for police misconduct in the United States.

“Zionism is integral to Jewish identity, but plaintiffs — proud unionists who have dedicated their professional lives to serving poor and disadvantaged clients — didn’t need to be Zionists, or in one case, even Jewish, to understand that anti-Semitism is antithetical both to their obligations as lawyers and to the mission of a union responsible for representing the interests of all its members,” said Rory Lancman, senior counsel at the Brandeis Center and a former Queens councilman.

One anti-Israel union member said in an email of the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis, “You keep talking about ‘Jewish babies being murdered,’ and women being raped, you’re simply spreading lies and misinformation. There is no proof or substantiation. There are no pictures…”

Four ALAA members identified as defendants in the lawsuit filed union charges against the plaintiffs, putting in motion the disciplinary proceedings to oust them from the union, the suit said.

That’s brazen retaliation of the plaintiffs’ rights to sue and violations under federal labor law and New York state and New York City anti-discrimination laws, the lawsuit claimed.

The plaintiffs, whose lawyers also include Lieb at Law, called for the court to stop the union from punishing them, as well as unspecified damages.

The UAW Local 2325, Legal Aid Attorneys union, did not respond to a Post request for comment.

July 9, 2024 (Washington, D.C.) – Today, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Lieb at Law, P.C. filed a federal District Court complaint against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, UAW Local 2325 (“the ALAA”) and individual union officials for undertaking acts to expel and otherwise discipline two Jewish and one Non-Jewish ally from the union in retaliation for their lawsuit opposing the ALAA’s anti-Semitic discriminatory practices manifested in the now infamous ALAA resolution attacking Israel soon after the October 7th terror attacks.

The resolution opposed by the plaintiffs was so vile that several non-profit legal services providers employing ALAA’s members felt compelled to denounce it as anti-Semitic and unrepresentative of their values, including plaintiffs’ employer, the Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, as well as The Legal Aid Society (which serves New York City), and the New York Legal Assistance Group (the Bronx Defenders issued a statement condemning a similarly anti-Semitic statement made by its chapter of the ALAA).

Said the Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman of the Brandeis Center, “Anti-Semitism in a union isn’t any less objectionable than anti-Semitism on a college campus, in a public school, or at a workplace. The Brandeis Center will hold accountable everyone responsible for trying to expel Jewish and non-Jewish members alike whose Zionism, sense of professional obligation to their clients, and basic decency compelled them to oppose the ALAA’s discriminatory and anti-Semitic practices, especially the ALAA’s profoundly anti-Semitic and destructive anti-Israel resolution that over a third of its members ultimately rejected.”

Said the Hon. Rory Lancman, Director of Corporate Initiatives & Senior Counsel at the Brandeis Center, “Zionism is integral to Jewish identity, but plaintiffs — proud unionists who have dedicated their professional lives to serving poor and disadvantaged clients — didn’t need to be Zionists, or in one case, even Jewish, to understand that anti-Semitism is antithetical both to their obligations as lawyers and to the mission of a union responsible for representing the interests of all its members.”

Said Andrew M. Lieb, Managing Partner of Lieb at Law, P.C., “No American should be retaliated against for fighting against what they sincerely believe is anti-Semitism and its consequences, which is why federal and local law clearly prohibit unions from conditioning union membership upon acquiescing to discrimination. We fight for all employees, of all religious faiths, who all have a right to be both true to their identity while also benefiting from unionization in leveraging concerted activity in negotiating optimal terms of employment.”

The anti-Semitic hostile environment within the ALAA represented a cornucopia of classic and modern anti-Semitism, including:

  • Calling for the end of the Jewish State and the denial of the Jewish People’s right to self-determination, which in the context of the October 7th massacre and the support for Hamas and Hezbollah expressed by other ALAA members plaintiffs understood as a call for further violence against Israel’s Jewish population; 
  • Ignoring completely the October 7th Hamas Attack, or minimizing or denying its barbarity, in statements on the Israel/Hamas war;
  • Accusations that “Jewish donations” caused ALAA Employers to denounce the anti-Semitic statements of their employees;
  • Charges that Jewish ALAA members opposing the anti-Semitic rhetoric and resolution have dual loyalty to Israel;
  • Attacks on the willingness and ability of those Jewish ALAA Members to represent minority clients;
  • Blaming Israel for police misconduct in the United States;
  • Orwellian claims that the Jewish state is committing genocide in its campaign against Hamas and that opponents of the resolution support genocide, distorting the term beyond recognition; and,
  • Dehumanizing and demonizing the Jewish State of Israel through the constant repetition of outlandish and debunked sensationalized claims that Israel targeted Palestinian Civilians.

One representative email cited in the federal District Court complaint reads:

“You keep talking about ‘Jewish babies being murdered,’ and women being raped, you’re simply spreading lies and misinformation. There is no proof or substantiation. There are no pictures. Even soldiers on the ground HAVE NOT confirmed this. LA Times retracted what they said. Biden’s team had to retract what he said.”

The resolution which the plaintiffs initially successfully blocked amounted to a 1,147-word diatribe against the existence of the Jewish State, wherein the Hamas Massacre, a pogrom unrivaled since the Holocaust, merited only seven words of passing mention as “the violent tragedy on October 7, 2023.”  

As the resolution was rushed to a vote of the ALAA’s membership, the three plaintiffs (two are Jewish, one is not) and a fourth ALAA member obtained a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in state Supreme Court in Nassau County blocking the vote on the grounds that, among other things, the ALAA violated its duty of fair representation and would unethically undermine clients’ trust in their lawyers ability to represent them regardless of their Jewish Identity or views on Israel. As cited in this federal District Court complaint, the state court legal proceedings revealed numerous examples of the anti-Semitic environment at the ALAA. The TRO was extended once by the state Supreme Court and remained in place when the ALAA removed the case to federal District Court until, ultimately, it was dissolved and the vote proceeded, with over a third of the ALAA’s membership voting “no.” With the resolution passed, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their lawsuit as being moot.

Immediately and in express retaliation against plaintiffs for filing the state Supreme Court lawsuit opposing the ALAA’s discriminatory and anti-Semitic resolution, four ALAA members identified as defendants in this lawsuit filed union charges against plaintiffs as an act towards causing their expulsion and other discipline from the union, a brazenly illegal act under both federal labor law and federal, New York, and New York City anti-discrimination laws.

Incredibly, the ALAA approved the charges as valid and set a trial process in motion. The remaining individual defendants are ALAA officials who aided and abetted and/or voted to approve the charges against plaintiffs for trial. Plaintiffs have patiently waited for months for the United Auto Workers International Executive Board to decide an appeal of the charges filed by plaintiffs, leaving plaintiffs in an intolerable state of limbo. The pending expulsion proceeding hanging over plaintiffs’ heads has had the intended effect of chilling their engagement in protected activity within the union and their willingness to oppose the ALAA’s continued discriminatory anti-Semitic acts. This federal District Court Complaint includes seven counts alleging violations of federal labor law and New York State and New York City anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief nullifying the expulsion proceedings against them and prohibiting the defendants from otherwise disciplining or retaliating against plaintiffs for having opposed the ALAA’s discriminatory practices, as well as seeking compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. (Plaintiffs have also filed a charge of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.)

Brandeis Center Sr. Counsel Rory Lancman accompanied Brandeis Center client Professor Dafna Golden as she testified before Congress

Brandeis Center client Dafna Golden, a professor of Geography at Mt. San Antonio College in California, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives last week at a hearing examining the impact on faculty of unchecked anti-Semitism on college campuses.

“I am here today to share the distressing experiences I have endured at Mt. SAC as a Jewish professor in the wake of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack in Israel,” testified Professor Golden. “I have experienced an anti-Semitic hostile environment at Mt. SAC and anti-Semitic discrimination specifically directed at me, which Mt. SAC – my employer — has failed to properly remedy or protect me from. Mt. SAC is my workplace, and in my opinion, this is unacceptable and illegal in any workplace.”

The hearing was conducted by the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and titled “Combating Workplace Antisemitism In Postsecondary Education: Protecting Employees From Discrimination.”

Rory Lancman, the Brandeis Center’s Director of Corporate Initiatives and Senior Counsel, has been assisting Professor Golden since shortly after the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel, which unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitism across the globe and on American college campuses in particular.

The discrimination began in earnest when Professor Golden objected to the college’s support for a professor’s planned screening of the film, “The Occupation of the American Mind,” just weeks after the October 7th attack.  Narrated by Roger Waters, the film’s central thesis is that a cabal of “leaders of major Jewish organizations” have conspired to use their power to control and thus “occupy” the minds of innocent Americans so that they would support Israel. The movie is basically a screen version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and serves no academic function.

In retaliation for voicing her objections to the film and the college’s withdrawal of its endorsement, the professor instigated a campaign of harassment against Professor Golden through email and in-person to his students by falsely labeling her a “violent Zionist” and a “former soldier in the IDF” and inciting his students “to stand up” to her.

In response, an organization on campus, Shut It Down 4 Palestine, vandalized Professor Golden’s bulletin board outside her office; the college library was pressured into removing a non-ideological, academic exhibit she installed on Israel’s changing borders over the years; her profile on RateMyProfessors.com was bombarded with fake negative reviews; anti-Israel students made public comments at a college Board of Trustees meeting demanding that she be fired and declaring a boycott of her classes; and her spring semester on-campus class was canceled due to low enrollment, limiting her to online teaching, making it impossible for her to maintain the collaborative relationships with her colleagues that is so essential for the multi-disciplinary program she manages.

Mt. San Antonio college did nothing to protect Professor Golden or address the discrimination, harassment, and ostracization she experienced.

“Like so many of my Jewish colleagues at colleges across the country, the general anti-Semitic hostile environment turned to focus on me directly – because I am a Jew; because I won’t hide or reject my connection as a Jew to the Jewish state and the Jewish people,” testified Professor Golden. “And my employer – Mt. SAC – did not help me; did not protect me; and did not fulfil its responsibilities under the law.  Despite filing a complaint with HR, no disciplinary actions were taken against the professor.  My employer – Mt. San Antonio College – refuses to act; refuses to take any disciplinary or remedial action.”

“Colleges are also workplaces, and the laws prohibiting anti-Semitic discrimination in the workplace apply no less to college faculty and staff than they do to workers in other settings,” said Mr. Lancman. “College administrators who fail to protect their faculty from workplace anti-Semitism of the kind experienced by Professor Golden are violating the law, plain and simple.”

Watch Professor Golden’s testimony below — or read its transcript.

This is the default image

LDB Client Professor Dafna Golden testifying at the U.S. House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. Professor Golden’s opening statement begins at 44:17, and her closing remarks can be found at 2:28:08

golden_testimonyDownload

Published in the New York Post on 6/17/2024 by Carl Campanile and David Propper

A Columbia University task force investigating antisemitism at the Manhattan Ivy League university has found a disturbing pattern of bias against Jews this year — including one professor who allegedly warned students to avoid the mainstream news because “it is owned by Jews,” according to a report.

Task force members told Haaretz that Jewish and Israeli pupils at the uptown campus felt “very targeted and ostracized” in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel that sparked the war in Gaza — and ongoing protests.

In another shocking allegation, a professor singled out a student with a Jewish-sounding last name while reading a class roll call and demanding they justify Israel’s war against Hamas.

Numerous students also reported having Jewish symbols torn off them while walking on campus, the Israeli outlet reported.

Professors also encouraged students to take part in anti-Israel demonstrations, and some pupils were forced to quit out of clubs because they didn’t want to be part of actions against Israel.

The Columbia antisemitism task force issued its first report in March. It has not issued its second, follow-up report yet.

But, task force members told the Israeli newspaper that there is plenty of work to be done after the group was formed in November; it has heard from about 500 students.

Professor Gil Zussman, an Israeli electric engineering professor, told The Post that the environment on campus is hostile to Israeli students, in particular.

“There’s clear discrimination against Israeli students and Jews,” he said. “They’ve been targeted from the beginning by demonstrators.”

He said he knows of at least two professors who brought their classes to anti-Israel encampments that cropped up on campus this spring.

“That’s like saying, `We don’t want Zionists here,’” he said. “I believe it’s a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights law to move classes into the encampment.”

Task force co-chair Ester Fuchs said the task force heard testimony that students believe their identity, values and existence on campus are under attack.

“My heart was broken listening to these students and what they were being forced to deal with,” Fuchs told Haaretz.

Another co-chair, law professor David Schizer, said the task force only understood how troubling antisemitism was on campus after hearing from scores of students.

“Unfortunately, there are still many faculty members who do not believe that there is antisemitism on campus, and some claim that antisemitism is being weaponized to protect pro-Israel views,” he told Haaretz.

A third co-chair, journalism professor Nicholas Lemann, told Haaretz the idea of Zionism is “unacceptable” in some circles.

“In terms of what we’ve heard, Jewish and Israeli students are feeling very targeted and ostracized,” he said.

Rory Lancman, an official with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told The Post he worries that Columbia is searching for a “watered-down definition of antisemitism,” based on the reports.

He think that indicates the school is not serious about fighting it on campus.

“You can’t solve a problem that you’re unwilling to define,” said Lancman.

The Post has sought comment from Columbia, though the school told Haaretz: “We are committed to combatting antisemitism and taking sustained, concrete action to ensure Columbia is a campus where Jewish students and everyone in our community feels safe, valued and able to thrive.”

Brandeis Center Director of Corporate Initiatives and Senior Counsel, Hon. Rory Lancman, will present in this CLE Zoom event sponsored by the Queens County Bar Association and the Brandeis Bar Association.

Register Now