Re-posted from the The Emory Wheel, 4/17/19 By Sydney Kaplan, Jordan Weber and Justin Kanoff Earlier this month was Emory Students for Justice in Palestine’s (ESJP) Israeli Apartheid Week, and the Wheel published an op-ed discussing an event that occurred on campus that troubled members of our campus community. For unfamiliar readers, several students awoke on April 2 to find flyers posted to their apartment and dorm room doors that, at first glance, warned of eviction from their residences. These flyers, however, were not eviction notices but rather flyers promoting the Palestinian rights movement by analogizing the evictions of Palestinians in Israeli territories with the hypothetical eviction of students on and off Emory’s campus. The organization that posted the flyers claimed to seek to raise awareness about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, other flyers posted around the School of Law during Israeli Apartheid Week depicted the Earth in chains superimposed upon the logo of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization that works to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. The AIPAC logo is a stylized version of the Star of David, probably the most recognizable symbol of Jews and Judaism worldwide. Text below the image read, “Stand Up To AIPAC! Resist the US/Israeli War Lobby!” This flyer, posted only days after the jarring eviction notices, directly invokes centuries of classic anti-Semitic tropes that portray grotesque Jewish caricatures as literally placing chains on the earth by promoting a nefarious “Jewish agenda” through greed, power and corruption. Both of the flyers coincided with ESJP’s Israeli Apartheid Week programming which aimed to “commemorate the ongoing abuses of human rights in Palestine, including the large-scale massacres of protesters at the Gaza border, with educational events, flyers and protests“ according to the statement released by ESJP. A recent Wheel op-ed by Anthony Wong (21C) noted that even though the eviction notices were eventually taken down, the “conversation about Palestinian rights is one that must continue.” In one way, Wong is right. College campuses are places where diverse opinions on all topics should flourish. In particular, Emory enjoys a robust tradition of fostering the exchange of ideas. The ongoing situation in Israel is not immune from this debate. As a dynamic, evolving and sometimes deeply personal conflict, thoughtful discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be encouraged, with every perspective on the issue given space to speak up. Any other way would be an affront to our Emory values of diversity, inclusion and respect. Respectfully, Wong failed to consider how lauding the fake eviction notices and the Israeli Apartheid Week programming only intensified the pain that many students at Emory were already feeling in its wake. Posting flyers that cause students to fear that they have been evicted is not starting a conversation — it is an unwelcome confrontation for students across Emory’s diverse campus that disagree with ESJP. Furthermore, these flyers were only a small part of ESJP’s Israeli Apartheid Week. From the Facebook event graphic alone, which depicts an unarmed woman in the crosshairs of a gun, you can see that ESJP did not seek to begin an educated conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may have raised awareness, but their messaging and tactics detracted from any productive conversation and pushed students further apart. Any honest conversation about furthering Palestinian rights should focus on understanding the complex web of historical actors and actions that have shaped the current crisis. Furthermore, productive conversation should focus on the opportunities that exist for peace and prosperity for Palestinians and their neighbors in the future. Instead, Israeli Apartheid Week focuses on blaming only the Israeli government for the ongoing crisis. By creating a week of programming exclusively devoted to attacking Israel instead of exploring and celebrating Palestinian past, present and future, ESJP failed to spark any productive conversation about the conflict that should be expected by our Emory community. Students at Emory and groups like ESJP undeniably have the right to question the Israeli government’s policies, just as we frequently question the policies of our own government. However, when we question decisions made by the U.S. government, we do not call for this country to cease to exist altogether or to not be able to protect itself against bad actors and terrorist threats. The National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) organization calls for a de facto collapse of the only Jewish state in the world when it identifies one of its goals as “ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall.” Without strategic territory like the Golan Heights and self-defense mechanisms like the wall, Israel would have indefensible borders and be at even more risk of attacks by neighboring nations and U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, like Hamas or Hezbollah. It is proper to question the Israeli government’s, or any government’s, political and policy choices. But, NSJP’s questioning applies a double standard to Israel that is not required of any other nation, demonizes the country and its Jewish residents, and delegitimizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. This crosses the line from appropriate questioning of a political entity to anti-Semitism. The line between placing blame on the world’s only Jewish state and placing blame on the collective Jewish people is very fine. Instances of when anti-Israel rhetoric crosses the line into anti-Semitism often invoke complex cultural and historical factors, like when activists compare past atrocities committed against Jews, like the Holocaust, to the current state of Israeli-Palestinian relations. In recent years, student activists on campuses nationwide have crossed the line between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel speech again and again. Just earlier this month, Columbia University’s (N.Y.) Students for Justice in Palestine was accused of using a poster with a cartoon image of an Israeli soldier with horns to promote Israeli Apartheid Week, (which SJP denies). We, as an Emory community, should be sensitive to the devices used throughout history to separate Jews from larger society and should hold ourselves and others accountable to make sure that political protest never devolves into hate. As Jewish and non-Jewish members of the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian community here at Emory, who strongly support a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict created through bilateral negotiations, we personally feel attacked by the events of ESJP’s Israeli Apartheid Week. We hope this op-ed reaffirms like-minded students that they are not alone on this campus and that they are part of a strong community that will not be intimidated by threats to our beliefs and identities. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, like so many other topics we are confronted with in our complex world, is a multifaceted issue. However, ESJP was undeniably wrong when it chose to use cheap shock tactics and stereotypes to share their one-sided, subjective and dishonest agenda instead of engaging with all sides of the debate in a way that is in line with the values that our Emory community holds dearly. *** Sydney Kaplan (19L) is president of the Graduate Student Government Association. Jordan Weber (19L) is president of the Emory Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Justin Kanoff (20L) is the president of the Emory Jewish Law Students Association. Assistant Opinion Editor Zach Ball (21C) previously served as president of Emory Students for Justice in Palestine and was not involved in editing this op-ed. This op-ed is supported by Emory Eagles for Israel and the Emory-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons On October 31st, UCLA’s Administrative Vice Chancellor Michael Beck sent a cease-and-desist letter to National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) over the logo used in their promotional material. NSJP had created a logo for their upcoming annual conference that featured the UCLA Bruin Bear playing with a Palestinian kite. That same day, the Jewish Journal had publicized the fact that NSJP was using the logo. Beck said, “Taken as a whole, these uses claim, suggest, or imply an affiliation with or an endorsement by UCLA of NSJP and/or its annual conference, which is simply incorrect.” The letter demands that NSJP stop using their logo and only reference the university when referring to where the conference is being held. They must also “obtain prior permission from UCLA for any such promotional materials to assure compliance with this restriction.” Additionally, the university prohibits NSJP from using “artistic renditions of the Bruin Bear associated with a Palestinian kite which some may interpret as an intention to endorse violence against Israel … UCLA did not grant permission for this use nor would it permit use of its name in a manner that could imply endorsement of violence.” Beck even provided helpful links to news articles exposing the fact that the Palestinians have been using incendiary kites to harm Israelis and Israeli land. The annual conference, which is set to take place on November 16-18, has sparked major controversy. While the university has now made it clear that they are not endorsing or promoting the conference, many have called for its cancellation. A petition by Stop Anti-Semitism was started last week, calling on UCLA to cancel the conference altogether. The petition highlights how SJP’s founder, Hatem Bazian, has spewed anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate and how SJP members have posted countless anti-Semitic comments online. It also points out the fact that SJP’s previous national conferences have glorified terrorists like Rasmea Odeh and Leila Khaled. If the conference is not canceled, they “call to hold UCLA accountable by investigating it for violation of anti-discrimination laws, its own policies against discrimination as were adopted by the UC Regents, and violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including Anti-Semitism) for federally assisted programs and activities.” The upcoming conference has also prompted students and professors at UCLA to speak out. When hearing of unauthorized logo incident, a chancellor professor at UCLA, Judea Pearl, said, “I have served on the faculty of UCLA for 49 years and I have never thought I would see the day when the symbol of my university would turn into a Hamas recruitment poster. The NSJP Conference reminds us that hate did not stop at Pittsburgh. U.S. campuses, emboldened by our blindness and inaction are now offering racist groups a fertile ground to spawn their venom, test out intimidating tactics, and gain academic legitimacy. The stench of hatred and sounds of incitement to hostilities that will emerge from the NSJP Conference will damage UCLA’s reputation irreparably.” Students have gone before the University of California Board of Regents, demanding that the conference be canceled and highlighting SJP’s support of terror and anti-Semitism. The university gave NSJP until November 5th to confirm that they had complied with instructions and removed their promotional material that implied endorsement by UCLA. On November 5th, NSJP tweeted that the cease-and-desist letter was “discriminatory treatment” and that they are “extensively reviewing our legal rights with our attorneys.” NSJP removed “UCLA” but had not removed the bear or the kite from their advertisement. The cease-and-desist letter ended by threatening to “pursue whatever additional remedies or claims it may have, including cancellation of the event, if NSJP fails to fully comply with the terms of this directive.” Therefore, NSJP’s failure to comply in full could potentially cause the cancelation of the conference. On November 6th, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously in favor of a resolution calling on UCLA to cancel the conference over concerns of anti-Semitism. City councilman Paul Koretz, who introduced the resolution, said, “As we work to increase security at Los Angeles Jewish community institutions in light of the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue massacre, bringing the SJP conference to Los Angeles in which leaders and members exhort to ‘kill all the Jews’ and ‘stuff some Jews in the oven’ is also a significant threat to public safety.”
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons Last week, the Brandeis Center’s Director of Legal Initiatives Aviva Vogelstein sent a letter to Florida State University (FSU) President John Thrasher, urging his administration to address numerous hateful social media postings by FSU students, targeting those who are Jewish, Israeli, or simply pro-Israel. These students, who were affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at FSU, posted blatantly anti-Semitic messages on Twitter and Facebook. Many of these postings referenced old tropes and stereotypes of Jews, while others had more violent messages. Some of these messages included: “Facebook and Yahood [Arabic word for ‘Jew’] – the cause of the worlds problems”; “I hate paying for people and not getting anything in return Jew a** n*ggas”; “Wanna confuse a Jew? Put em in a round room and tell ‘em to find the penny in the corner” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs against anyone on the basis of their race, color, or national origin. In 2004, the Marcus Policy extended Title VI protection to Jewish students based on shared ethnic or ancestral characteristics. If Jewish students, or other students such as Muslim or Sikh students, are targeted or discriminated against on campus on the basis of their ethnic or ancestral background, any university receiving federal funding – such as FSU – has a duty to prevent the creation of a hostile environment. Additionally, the anti-Semitic postings violate The Seminole Creed’s requirement that FSU students “…show respect for others,” and “…learn from and about those who are different and work to make the University more inclusive.” The postings also violate FSU’s Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Statement which states that “All members of our community will help create a[n]…educational environment that promotes…respect…free from discrimination [and] harassment.” In its June 8 letter, the Brandeis Center urged FSU President Thrasher to publicly condemn the hateful messages, investigate thoroughly and take responsive actions consistent with FSU policies and applicable constitutional protections, reach out to the targeted students and communities to provide support and resources as needed, and create more programming on the nature and different manifestations of anti-Semitism, and provide extracurricular programming to raise community awareness about global and campus anti-Semitism. The text of the letter can be found below: _________ Dear President Thrasher: We write on behalf of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB), a national public interest advocacy organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. We work to combat campus anti-Semitism, and often work with university administrators nationwide to offer best practices on how to combat and prevent anti- Semitism on their campuses, and write to express concern about the recently reported anti-Semitic social media postings by current and former Florida State University students. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education reminded us that federal law “protects all students, including Jewish students, from discrimination based on race, color, and national origin (including language and actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics),” and that “schools must take immediate and appropriate action to respond to complaints of discrimination, including harassment . . . .” (See Combating Discrimination Against Jewish Students, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/jewish-factsheet-201701.pdf). Today, we urge you to promptly and properly address this challenge at FSU. We strongly urge you to publicly condemn the statements as anti-Semitic and take further actions to correct the campus climate for Jewish, Israeli and pro-Israel students. Dozens of social media postings, which we have independently verified, include a mixture of inciting violence against Jews and Israelis and displaying anti-Semitic and racist sentiment. The social media postings include: “I hate paying for people and not getting anything in return Jew a** n*ggas”; “Y do Jews have big noses…Cuz air is free…”; “Burn Israel to the ground”; A photo of two people wearing Keffiyehs seemingly assembling a Molotov cocktail, captioned, “Actual goals”; “Wanna confuse a Jew? Put em in a round room and tell ‘em to find the penny in the corner”; “Facebook and Yahood [Arabic word for ‘Jew’] – the cause of the worlds problems”; Referring to a post they tweeted in 2016 at the National Students for Justice in Palestine Conference about “f*cking up a Zionist,” a student stated, “I’d f*ck up a Zionist in ’16 & we’re still doing it in 2018”; and Writing that the FSU Student Body President should “…delete his existence” for expressing support for Israel. We do not dispute the right of students to express themselves, even outrageously or hurtfully. However, we are concerned that the anti-Semitic and discriminatory tropes expressed in these statements and similar statements could create an environment that Israeli students, Jewish students, and other students, will reasonably perceive to be hostile. We urge your administration to exercise its obligation to address the harms that arise when speakers misuse that right in ways that poison the environment and sends a message of exclusion and hate. Such messages are incompatible with The Seminole Creed’s requirement that FSU community members “…show respect for others,” and “…learn from and about those who are different and work to make the University more inclusive,” and federal civil rights law. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal funds. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has announced that Title VI applies to discrimination on the basis of Jewish ethnicity or ancestry in guidance issued in 2004 (see Kenneth L. Marcus, Dear Colleague Letter (Sep. 13, 2004), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/religious-rights2004.html). In 2010, OCR clarified that unlawful harassment need not include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents (see Russlynn Ali, Dear Colleague Letter (Oct. 26, 2010), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html). Speech that invokes anti-Semitic stereotypes against Israelis and Jews, such as the social media messages at issue, can create a hostile environment for Israeli and Jewish students on campus in violation of Title VI. Further, FSU’s Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Statement holds that, “All members of our community will help create a[n]…educational environment that promotes…respect…free from discrimination [and] harassment.” (See Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Statement, http://www.hr.fsu.edu/PDF/Publications/diversity/EEO_Statement.pdf). Pursuant to that statement, FSU’s “Discrimination Response System” has defined bias as “an act or behavior motivated by the offender(s) pre-formed negative opinion or attitude toward facets of another person(s)’ identity. An incident of bias may occur whether the act is intentional or unintentional. An act of bias may be directed toward an individual or group. Bias may contribute to creating an unsafe, hostile and/or an unwelcoming environment for another person(s). For Florida State University, an incident of bias is an act that violates any of the tenets of The Seminole Creed.” (See Discrimination Response System, https://thecenter.fsu.edu/resources/discrimination-response-system). We hope that you will seize this as a teachable moment to educate your students about the evils of anti-Semitism and racism and the need to take a firm stand against them, and we recommend the following corrective and preventative actions: Address the harm done to the community by issuing a strong university statement condemning the social media postings and anti-Semitism firmly, promptly, and with specificity, along the lines discussed in “LDB’s Best Practice Guide for Combating Anti- Semitism and Anti-Israelism” (see attached). Investigate the situation thoroughly and take responsive actions consistent with FSU policies and applicable constitutional protections. Reach out to targeted student communities, local community leaders, and experts, including Hillel at FSU, Chabad of Tallahassee & FSU, Noles for Israel, NolePAC, FSU- IAC Mishelanu to offer support and resources as needed. Create more academic, curricular, and other programming on the nature and different manifestations of anti-Semitism (see attached LDB Fact Sheet on the Elements of Anti- Semitism), and provide extracurricular programming to raise community awareness about global and campus anti-Semitism. In accordance with the directive of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, we ask you to exercise your “ethical moral obligation to act as leaders, and promote the values of respect, tolerance, and inclusiveness on campus,” and to educate your students and faculty “that with freedom of speech comes responsibility.” We urge you to take these actions to remedy the current situation, and lower the likelihood that bigotry or anti-Semitism will recur on your campus. We are available to share our expertise on these issues, and further discuss our recommendations with you, and can be reached at the e-mail addresses listed below, or by phone at (202) 559-9296. Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Aviva Vogelstein Director of Legal Initiatives The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
On Friday, May 25, student leaders of UCLA School of Law’s chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) and attorneys at LDB authored a letter sent to UCLA Chancellor Block urging action in response to a recent event disruption on UCLA’s campus. The letter highlights how the recent disruption of a Students Supporting Israel (SSI) event not only violated UCLA Student Code of Conduct policies, but also potentially violated the California Penal Code as well as federal law. LDB’s UCLA student leaders and LDB attorneys urged the UCLA administration to “take meaningful and effective action” in order to prevent the development of a hostile campus environment, which has the potential to not only impact Jewish and Israeli students, but all underrepresented minority groups as well. The incident which precipitated this letter took place on May 17, when members of the UCLA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a registered student group, along with other students and individuals unaffiliated with the university, protested an SSI event entitled “Indigenous Peoples Unite.” As described by SSI, the event “provided a platform to three different indigenous communities to share the stories of their people…The indigenous groups represented were the Jewish, Kurdish, and Armenian communities.” However, about 41 minutes into the event, dozens of protestors loudly entered the room carrying Palestinian flags, clapping, and chanting obscenities and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, with chants such as “We want ’48, we don’t want two states,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” While the protestors were forced to leave the room in which the event was being held, they continued their disruption immediately outside. Out of fear and intimidation, the attendees of the event quickly vacated the room after the event concluded under the protection of several police officers. This event prompted several administrators at UCLA to publish a statement which acknowledged how “panelists and audience [members] felt silenced and intimidated,” and reiterated the university’s commitment to promoting a “respectful dialogue” on campus. In an attempt to achieve this goal, the authors claim they will “strive to communicate what freedom of expression does and does not mean” and review “internal processes to better manage any future disruptions that occur.” In addition, they will “refer all evidence of wrongdoing to local prosecutors” and work with them to investigate outside community members and discipline UCLA students. However, as the LDB letter points out, the circumstances and severity of the event disruption imply “the urgent need for [the] administration to take meaningful and effective action” beyond merely investigating the situation. In recent years, the University of California has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring their students’ free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In their unanimously adopted Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, the University of California Board of Regents indicated, “The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.” While this commitment to defending their students’ free speech protections is laudable, it seems UCLA has fallen short of maintaining this lofty ideal. The protestors, who denied the right of the speakers to speak and the audience members to listen, infringed upon certain First Amendment-protected speech activities. And as the previous statements demonstrate, these protections lie at the heart of the university’s mission. Accordingly, the disruptors “endangered the entire academic community, which relies upon the free exchange of ideas.” In addition to this encroachment on protected speech principles, the letter details how the protestors also potentially violated various provisions of the UCLA Student Code of Conduct and the California Penal Code. The letter explains how the actions of the protestors are in clear violation of the UCLA’s Student Code of Conduct, which prohibits both the “obstruction or disruption of University activities,” and “disorderly” behavior. Additionally, the protestors’ actions potentially violated several provisions of the California Penal Code through their “maliciously and willfully disturb[ance of] another person by loud and unreasonable noise.” These actions suggest that their intent was not to communicate with the attendees or engage them in any sort of meaningful dialogue, but rather to disturb the panelists and attendees. Finally, UCLA’s failure to respond promptly and effectively to this discriminatory protest may result in a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or national origin” in programs that receive federal funds. Under the leadership of Kenneth L. Marcus, LDB’s President and General Counsel, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights announced in 2004 that Title VI applies to groups that face discrimination on the basis of shared ethnic or ancestral characteristics. Continued university inaction invites both moral and legal liability. LDB UCLA student leaders and LDB attorneys offered several recommendations for the UCLA administration. These actions, which include condemning the disruptor’s actions, revising university policies, and providing education and training to students, staff, and UCLA police would not only signal the university’s commitment to combatting pervasive anti-Semitism, but also potentially defuse an increasingly harsh campus climate. As the UCLA administrators stated in their letter, facing confrontational circumstances, the panelists and attendees of the event demonstrated profound “courage and integrity; the disruptors regrettably did not.” The nature and severity of the disruption demands swift and responsive action by the university. Holding universities accountable for campus anti-Semitism remains one of the primary avenues in which this pernicious form of discrimination can be combatted. The text of the letter sent to Chancellor Gene D. Block can be found below: May 25, 2018 VIA E-MAIL (chancellor@ucla.edu) Chancellor Gene D. Block University of California – Los Angeles Office of the Chancellor 2147 Murphy Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 RE: Disruption of Students Supporting Israel Event at UCLA Dear Chancellor Block, As student leaders of UCLA School of Law’s chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB), and attorneys at LDB – a national non-profit legal advocacy organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism in higher education – we write out of concern about the aggressive disruption of the May 17th Students Supporting Israel (SSI) event, “Indigenous Peoples Unite.” We understand that UCLA is investigating the situation, and we commend you for that. However, we wish to remind you of the serious nature of the violations that occurred and the urgent need for your administration to take meaningful and effective action The facts have been reported to us as follows: On May 17th, SSI hosted the “Indigenous Peoples Unite” event. Described by SSI, the event “provided a platform to three different indigenous communities to share the stories of their people, by providing an overview of their history, struggles, and aspirations. The indigenous groups represented were the Jewish, Kurdish, and Armenian communities, three groups who are often ignored when speaking about indigenous history.” About 41 minutes into the event, while the Armenian student speaker was presenting, a disruptor barged into the room, ripped the Armenian flag off of the wall, announced “Yo guys this is my F***ing flag,” and aggressively threw the Armenian student’s name placard off the table. Immediately thereafter, about 25-30 disruptors loudly entered the room singing, chanting, clapping, playing music, with megaphones, whistles, Palestinian flags, and signs. They ripped the Israeli flag off of the wall, and when a student struggled to get it back and put it back up, they ripped it down again. The disruptors’ loud chants included: “We want ’48, we don’t want two states,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, as well as “F*** White Supremacy.” Several of the disruptors were dancing and chanting in the front of the room, blocking the panelists. When a student organizer attempted to speak into the microphone, disruptors loudly blew whistles so that she could not be heard. Though UCLA police were present – at the advance request of SSI, due to threats of an organized and coordinated disruption – it took nearly seven minutes for the police officers to remove the disruptors. As the police officers were removing them, there were chants of “UCLA police stand on the side of racism,” of “terrorism,” and of the “terrorist state of Israel.” Though removed from the room itself, the disruptors remained immediately outside, chanting loudly and making it very difficult to focus or hear anything being said at the event. When the panelists concluded, only one student asked a question. The attendees then vacated the room quickly out of fear and intimidation. It reportedly took over a dozen police officers, including some who were in riot gear, to both remove the disruptors and assist the event attendees with exiting the room safely. We are staunchly committed to free speech for all students, including the right to reasonably protest. However, denying the right of a speaker to speak and of listeners to listen violate the free speech principles of the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution. Those involved in this disruption – which reportedly included members of the student groups Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), SWANA-LA, other students, as well as individuals unaffiliated with the university – restricted the speech of the Armenian, Kurdish, and Jewish panelists, and restricted the audience members’ right to listen. In so doing, these disruptors endangered the entire academic community, which relies upon the free exchange of ideas. The University of California has time and again reaffirmed its commitment to free speech. Responding to similar events in 2012, former UC President Mark Yudof stated: University campuses are proper venues for collisions of ideas and viewpoints. Conflicting viewpoints not only are inevitable but also healthy in this context. What is not acceptable are acts meant to disrupt the speech of others. . . . Attempting to shout down speakers is not protected speech. It is an action meant to deny others their right to free speech. (See “Open letter to UC community from President Yudof” (March 8, 2012).) In the UC Regents’ Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, the Regents importantly included that: “Freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry are paramount in a public research university and form the bedrock on which our mission of discovery is founded. The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them. Current UC President Janet Napolitano, in an October op-ed for USA Today titled, We need to restore trust in free speech. We’re opening a new center [National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement] to help, wrote: “we need to listen and talk to each other, with respect for each other’s humanity and the right to disagree.” We are pleased that freedom of speech is so deeply important to the University of California, and for this reason, this disruption must be properly addressed. In addition to violating the First Amendment, the disruptors potentially violated various provisions of the UCLA Student Code of Conduct and the California Penal Code. Violations of UCLA Student Code of Conduct The disruptors appear to have violated various provisions of UCLA’s Student Code of Conduct, including but not limited to: § 102.13 – obstruction or disruption, § 102.14 – disorderly behavior, § 102.15 – disturbing the peace, § 102.16 – failure to comply, and § 102.25 – violations of law. UCLA’s Student Code of Conduct § 102.13 prohibits the “Obstruction or disruption of . . . University activities.” The disruptors’ actions clearly violated this in numerous ways. By approaching the panel’s table while the Armenian representative was presenting, heckling the speaker, tearing down the flags on display, ripping the speaker’s name placard off the table, blowing whistles, holding up signs, chanting, and dancing, and not allowing the event to continue as planned, they clearly and intentionally obstructed and disrupted SSI’s event. The aforementioned antics likely also qualify as “disorderly” as defined by § 102.14. Further, members of SJP and the other student disruptors appear to have violated § 102.16 when they reportedly ignored police instruction through much of the ordeal. As will be described below, the disruptors also likely violated several provisions of the California Penal Code and henceforth also violated § 102.15 by “disturbing the peace,” and § 102.25, by committing violations of the law. California Penal Code The students and outside disruptors potentially violated various provisions of the California Penal Code, including but not limited to: § 403 – disturbance of an assembly or meeting, § 415 – disturbing the peace, and § 182 – criminal conspiracy to do the aforementioned. Under § 403, “Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.” To establish a violation of § 403, “it must be shown that defendant substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting by intentionally committing acts in violation of implicit customs or usages or of explicit rules for governance of the meeting, of which he knew, or as a reasonable man should have known; and in applying such standards, a major consideration is the nature of the meeting involved.” Cal. Penal Code § 403 (Deering). By storming into the panel event, the disruptors undeniably intentionally violated implicit customs of panel events, in which the audience listens to the speakers and asks questions at appropriate times. This custom is common knowledge and certainly would be understood by a “reasonable person,” especially the college student protestors, since these types of events occur often on campuses. Further, the protestors chanting and blowing whistles after storming the relatively small classroom undoubtedly substantially impaired the functioning of the meeting by having the objective impact of the speakers not being able to be heard. This is evidenced by the Armenian speaker attempting to continue presenting after the protesters’ antics had begun, but being unable to do so because he could not be heard by the audience, and by one of the student organizers attempting to calm down the disruptors by speaking into the microphone, but being silenced by loud whistle blowing and dancing. Lastly the protestors were reportedly warned and requested by SSI at UCLA board members, to cease their disruptive conduct and instead join the meeting as participants in the dialogue that the panel was intended to facilitate, and eventually a version of this warning and request was repeated by the campus police officers present. The protesters failed to heed the warnings. Thus, it appears that all the required elements of a § 403 violation are met. The disruptors also potentially violated § 415, disturbing the peace, for “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] another person by loud and unreasonable noise. . . .” In referring to “loud noise,” § 415 encompasses communications made in a loud manner where the communication is not intended as a communication but is merely a guise to disturb persons. In re Brown, 9 Cal. 3d 612 (1973). In this incident, the protesters use of speakers to play music, their chanting, and their blowing of whistles demonstrates their noise was not intended as communication but rather mainly to disturb the panelists and attendees. The protesters could also potentially be prosecuted for § 182 criminal conspiracy to commit a §§ 403 or 415 violation. “The gist of conspiracy to commit a crime” is the unlawful agreement to commit any crime accompanied by an overt act in furtherance of such agreement. It is not necessary that two persons meet together and enter into an explicit or formal agreement to commit the crime, or that the conspiracy be expressed in words. Cal. Penal Code § 182 (Deering). “If there be concert of action, all parties working together understandingly with single design for accomplishment of common purpose,” it is sufficient to constitute a conspiracy. Marino v. United States, 91 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1937). Demonstrated by their coordinated entrance into the panel event and disruptive activities, the disruptors engaged in a litany of overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to disturb the assembly and disturb the peace. Additionally, evidence of an explicit agreement may exist as exemplified by a UCLA SJP member calling for others to protest and shut down the SSI panel in an “Arts & Activism Alliance” group message. Thus, a § 182 criminal conspiracy to commit a §§ 403 or 415 violation could likely be proven. Federal Law Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or national origin” in programs that receive federal funds. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced in guidance that Title VI applies to groups that face discrimination on the basis of shared ethnic or ancestral characteristics (see Kenneth L. Marcus, Dear Colleague Letter (Sep. 13, 2004), available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/religious-rights2004.html). In 2010, OCR clarified that unlawful harassment need not include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents (see Russlynn Ali, Dear Colleague Letter (Oct. 26, 2010), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague- 201010.html). In 2017, OCR reminded us that, “Title VI protects all students, including Jewish students, from discrimination based on race, color, and national origin (including language and actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics). Schools must take immediate and appropriate action to respond to complaints of discrimination, including harassment or bullying based on race, color, or national origin” (see OCR, Combating Discrimination Against Jewish Students, U.S Dept. of Educ. (2017), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/jewish-factsheet-201701.pdf). In 2016, the University of California Board of Regents’ stated in their unanimously approved “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance,” that “Anti-Semitism, anti-semitic forms of anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.” Likewise, the anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism on display here have no place at UCLA. Their chants of “We want ’48, we don’t want two states,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” call for the destruction of the state of Israel. The disruptors here sought to intimidate and silence Armenian, Kurdish, Jewish, Israeli and pro-Israel students, and if left unaddressed, could create a hostile environment for students of Armenian, Kurdish, Jewish and/or Israeli backgrounds on campus, in violation of Title VI. Recommendations The students and outside community organizers involved in the event disruption violated the First Amendment and engaged in conduct that potentially violates UCLA policy and the California Penal Code. Inaction by your administration could lead to potential violations of federal civil rights law. Effort to marginalize and stigmatize Jewish and pro-Israel students implicates not only issues of potential legal liability but also moral obligations as well. We urge your administration to take appropriate responsive actions, including implementing the UC Regents’ Statement of Principles, condemning the disruptors’ actions, revising university policies, providing education and training to students, staff, and UCLA police, including the following: Implement the UC Board of Regents’ unanimously approved “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance.” In addition to the Regents’ statement acknowledging that anti-Semitism can manifest as anti-Zionism, the Regents important inclusion of a discussion on free speech should be implemented into UCLA policy as well: “Freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry are paramount in a public research university and form the bedrock on which our mission of discovery is founded. The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.” Publicly condemn the disruptive and unacceptable behavior of students, student groups, and outside organizers. In 2015, UCLA Vice Chancellor Janina Montero issued a strong public statement following an ugly anti-Semitic incident on campus, stating in part that the “hurtful and offensive comments displayed ignorance of the history and racial diversity of the Jewish people, insensitivity and a disappointing lack of empathy. Bigotry against the Jewish people or other groups is abhorrent and does not represent the values of UCLA or the beliefs of our community.” The same type of statement should be issued here. For more guidance on the type of statement to issue, see attached LDB Best Practices for Combating Campus Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism. Revise your policies to take steps to prevent such disruptions in the future. Brooklyn College, for example, adopted a policy intended to prevent similar disruptions, emphasizing, it is “important to clearly articulate the lines of authority and responsibility” for a campus event. (http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/web/off_dosa/140219_SC_EPIHandbook-Spring2014.pdf, at 24). Among other changes, the policy requires that each major event begin with a faculty member reading The College Diverse Viewpoint Statement, which states: “All participants at any event on campus must be respectful of our diverse community and the viewpoints that are expressed. Disruptive behavior of any sort will not be tolerated.” (p. 53) Fully investigate the students and student groups involved with the disruption, and discipline accordingly, consistent with UCLA policy and applicable constitutional considerations. Fully investigate the outside community organizers who joined the students in the protest, and determine if these individuals or groups should be banned from campus for violations of policy and the California Penal Code, consistent with UCLA policy and applicable constitutional considerations. Provide proper training for UCLA police for how to handle such a disruption in the future. Require mandatory training and education and training for all students and student groups on anti-Semitism and how it can and often does manifest as anti-Zionism. For more guidance on this issue, see attached LDB Fact Sheet on the Elements of Anti-Semitic Discourse. We are available to discuss our recommendations with you, and can be reached at the contact information listed below. Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of this matter.
Stephanie Plotkin passed away suddenly a few weeks ago. Stephanie was a staunch advocate for the rights of Jewish and pro-Israel students. In 2015, Stephanie, who was an English-Secondary Education major at Grand Valley State University, was required to take a certain English course for her degree. In this class, she frequently encountered anti-Israel indoctrination, which she chronicled for the Truth Revolt. Stephanie told how she was required, for her English course, to attend a lecture by Nora Barrows-Friedman entitled, “In Our Power: U.S. Students Organize for Justice in Palestine.” Ms. Barrows-Friedman writes for the notorious Electronic Intifada website, which is known for publishing viciously anti-Israel and anti-Semitic articles and promoting BDS campaigns. Upset about this requirement, Stephanie approached the Professor after class to speak with him about the event: “Professor, I feel uncomfortable about having to attend this lecture.” “How knowledgeable do you feel you are on the subject?” he asked. “Pretty knowledgeable, I think. I watch the news, and I know Palestinians want Israelis gone. Is that what this is about? Because I believe Israel has every right to be there.” Her inquiry yielded no flexibility however, as Stephanie was still required that she attend the lecture. Still feeling conflicted about the event, Stephanie resolved that she would attend but also document the speech. As Stephanie wrote, Ms. Barrows-Friedman’s lecture immediately set off alarm. After telling the class of her pregnancy, Barrows-Friedman then announced that “anyone who decided to ‘be a bully’ would be immediately removed from the lecture.” This announcement did not sit right with Stephanie. I focused on that for awhile. Does that mean there can’t be dissenting opinions? Are we not allowed to ask questions that countered her beliefs? I was appalled. What did being pregnant have to do with people asking questions about the content of her lecture? What if she was wrong? We weren’t allowed to speak up during the Q and A? What WAS this?? As Stephanie described it, the lecture went quickly because Barrows-Friedman provided little background information and focused on only one topic: BDS. This involved boycotting products that “funded Israeli soldiers,” “making sure companies would not support anything made by Israel,” “sanctioning Israel,” and “needing to help the people who were displaced from ‘Occupied Palestine.’” (The discriminatory BDS movement, which seeks to harm and delegitimize Israel, has been afflicting college campuses all over the country. While some colleges have passed BDS resolutions, the fight against this prejudiced campaign is being actively being waged. Schools like the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have recently defeated BDS measures, while others, such as Texas A&M, have adopted resolutions which oppose anti-Israel boycotts and all forms of anti-Semitism.) Stephanie related how she was infuriated by the one-sided story telling that had occurred. She went home to write her paper, striving to remain neutral as the prompt required. However, this did not go according to planned. Stephanie would read some of the work of her peers, and felt inspired to address the anti-Israel indoctrination they were just exposed to. After reading what other students had to say, I felt my paper needed to hold a little more truth than our lecture had. I started neutrally, explaining what Nora Barrows-Friedman discussed. Then I explained my knowledge on the subject. Finally, I shared my own opinion. After this incident, Stephanie wrote how she re-examined much of the literature that would be required reading for the course and reveals the course’s subject matter. We will be studying a whole unit on the Israel-Palestinian crisis, and read works from Palestinian authors, denouncing the colonization of their homeland. I have already skimmed over many of these poems and texts. Colonialism is a major theme in our class. I should mention the name of the class I am taking. Most would think it was a Political Science class. Would you believe this class is an English class? Would it make sense to you that this class is required for me as a future English-Secondary Education major? I am going to be a future teacher of high school students. I will be molding young minds, along with many others in my class. Do you find this as troubling as I do? Yes, Stephanie. We find it as troubling as you did. The bravery of Stephanie Plotkin should not be understated. Confronting anti-Israel indoctrination, Stephanie had the courage to speak up when few others would do so. We mourn the loss of Stephanie today. While she may no longer be with us, her heroism will not be soon forgotten.
The Louis D. Brandeis Center had been actively engaged in addressing these events, which had previously led to the imposition of discipline against Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Last May, SSI hosted “Reservists on Duty,” a group of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reservists who visit campus meetings to discuss IDF policy. The Reservists visited UCI during SJP’s annual anti-Israel hate week (marketed misleadingly as an “Israel Apartheid Week”). Their goal was reportedly to engage in educational conversations and present an alternative perspective. During that week, on May 10, 2017, SSI hosted an on-campus discussion featuring the five Reservists. This event was disrupted by members of SJP. Initially, the SJP students who came into the room asked the panelists questions respectfully; however, as the SJP students became increasingly dissatisfied with the Reservists’ answers, their behavior became more unruly and hostile. They began clapping and interrupting the speakers, and eventually began chanting at the Reservists in protest. Their anti-Zionist chants included: “Israel Israel, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!”; “Israel Israel what do you say, how many people have you killed today?”; and “Hey hey, ho ho, these colonizers have got to go!” Despite numerous requests from SSI and UC Irvine administrators to stop their disruption, the SJP students refused, and would eventually leave the forum only to continue their chants outside of the room. The UC Irvine Police Department was called and had to escort the attendees of the event out of the area. The following day, on May 11, 2017, an SJP leader admitted in a megaphone on campus, that SJP had purposefully disrupted the event the night before and an event the previous year, despite the administration telling them not to disrupt (she shouted, “we went to disrupt their event to let them know that we refuse to allow the normalization of their presence here…”). Following these events, the Brandeis Center called on the UCI administration to investigate the event disruption. In two letters sent to UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman in May and July 2017, the Brandeis Center, joined by StandWithUs and SSI, urged UCI to take action to rectify the situation. The Brandeis Center’s May letter insisted that “more must be done … to prevent SJP from engaging in this type of discriminatory and disruptive behavior again against Jewish and pro-Israel students.” The Brandeis Center’s July letter called on the administration to “consistently enforce its own policies and regulations,” in accordance with the UC Regents’ Principles Against Intolerance. Additionally, it advocated for future training of staff on how to more effectively prevent and minimize disruptive protests on campus. The Brandeis Center also joined a June 2017 letter, organized by the AMCHA Initiative urging further action from UCI. Following this advocacy, the UCI administration sanctioned SJP in August 2017, placing the group on disciplinary probation for two academic years, ending in the Summer of 2019. At the same time as the investigation was ongoing against SJP, SJP filed a complaint against SSI, alleging that the Reservists on Duty, hosted by SSI, verbally threatened, sexually harassed, and followed SJP members in the days surrounding the May 10 SJP event disruption. SJP alleged that SSI was complicit in the behavior exhibited by the Reservists on Duty, violating student conduct policy. Although ten witnesses had provided written complaints to the Office of Academic Integrity & Student Conduct, only two witnesses agreed to schedule interviews with the investigating Student Conduct Office. Neither of these witnesses claimed any knowledge of SSI’s actions with respect to inviting the Reservists on Duty to campus. Additionally, the Student Conduct Officer interviewed a leader of SSI who possessed intimate knowledge regarding the actions of the group. In his interview, he disagreed with the SJP witness testimony, saying that it was “members of Students for Justice in Palestine [who] were the ones ‘getting in faces’ and not the other way around.” In addition, he testified that he made it clear to the Reservists on Duty that they should remain “civil and nonviolent” when engaging in educational conversations with students. Using a preponderance of evidence standard, the report exonerated SSI of any wrongdoing. While SSI is now vindicated, SJP continues to serves its 2-year disciplinary probation. The Brandeis Center has been focused on UCI for quite some time. Almost one year to the date before the May 2017 SJP event disruption, SJP and their affiliates at UCI disrupted an SSI-sponsored screening of the film, “Beneath The Helmet.” UCI Jewish student Eliana Kopley was chased and intimidated during the course of this disruption, and forced to hide in a kitchen under the protection of UCI staff. The Brandeis Center represented Kopley during the aftermath of this incident. Following advocacy by the Brandeis Center, Hillel International, Hillel of Orange County, and other organizations, UCI found that SJP had violated the Code of Conduct, which resulted in a six-month “warning” period for SJP (which lasted until March 29, 2017), and required SJP to host a program that would educate about the behavior demonstrated during the incident. Prior to the 2016 and 2017 SJP event disruptions, the Brandeis Center was heavily involved in the UC Regents’ process for developing the “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance,” specifically intended to deal with the long history of anti-Semitic incidents in the UC system. LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus had served as one of the Regents’ two national experts on anti-Semitism in developing the Statement, which was unanimously approved by the Regents in March 2016. In its introduction, the Statement importantly included that, “Anti-Semitism, anti-semitic forms of anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.” Brandeis Center attorneys have repeatedly urged UCI to fully implement these principles in addressing incidents such as the ones described above. Following LDB’s advocacy in 2016, UCI tasked Vice Chancellor Douglas Haynes with the responsibility of developing policies to implement the Principles into their policies. VP Haynes’ efforts resulted in the release of a report: “Higher Ground: The Alignment of UCI’s Policies, Principles, and Practices with the UC Regents’ Principles Against Intolerance.” While the report and recent disciplinary actions against SJP for violations of the university code are steps in the right direction, more work remains. As anti-Semitic sentiment remains pervasive on college campuses across the country, the Brandeis Center continues to keep a watchful eye and lend a voice to those who might not otherwise have one, and remains committed to stopping this pernicious form of bigotry.
Following years of disruptive behavior by the University of California at Irvine (UCI)’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), UCI announced last week that it has sanctioned SJP “with disciplinary probation for two academic years.” The university’s action follows steadfast action by several organizations that have spoken up for UCI’s Jewish and pro-Israel students, including the Louis D. Brandeis Center, StandWithUs (SWU), Students Supporting Israel (SSI), and the AMCHA Initiative. This probation follows SJP’s May disruption of an on-campus discussion sponsored by UCI’s chapter of SSI. The May 10 SSI event featured five Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reservists, appearing on behalf of “Reservists on Duty,” a group of Israeli reservists who attend campus meetings to discuss IDF policy. The SSI meeting was interrupted repeatedly by shouting, chanting, and other verbal disruption by the students affiliated with SJP. Several of the interruptions featured profanity, including the SJP members repeatedly screaming “F-you” at the IDF reservists. Videos of the exchanges were captured by Gary Fouse, a retired UCI instructor who has done much to chronicle anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activity on that campus over the years. In two strongly-worded letters sent in May and July, the Louis D. Brandeis Center, together with SWU and SSI, chronicled the abuses suffered by the students, and urged UCI to rectify the situation. The May letter insisted that “more must be done … to prevent SJP from engaging in this type of discriminatory and disruptive behavior again against Jewish and pro-Israel students.” LDB, SWU, and SSI reminded UCI of their obligations under federal law, as well as the UC Regent’s “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance,” which announced that “Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.” The Brandeis Center also signed onto a letter organized by the AMCHA Initiative, signed by a total of 53 groups, urging further action. After UCI Chancellor Gillman and Vice Provost Haynes acknowledged the severity of the disruption and professed concern for the safety and security of all students, LDB, SWU, and SSI sent a second letter in July outlining violations of the California Penal Code and UCI Policy and urging the UCI administration to take forceful disciplinary action. “It is unfortunate that UCI needed to be reminded of its legal obligations in this way,” LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus commented, “But we are glad that UCI is now signaling that it will protect its students from such outrages in the future. This new action is deserving of praise.” (more…)
The UCSB campus On May 11th, the BDS movement suffered a major defeat at the University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB) when a resolution to divest from Israel met with zero votes in favor. The tally on May 11th ended with 0 in favor, 15 against, and seven abstentions from the vote. This was the fourth attempt at passing a divestment motion on UCSB’s campus, with each resolution having less support than the previous. The UCSB Student Senate rejected the BDS motion in 2015 by a vote of 13 to 12. The difference in the votes cast in favor of the BDS resolution in 2015 and its more recent counterpart illustrate the turning of the tide against BDS on college campuses. The vote came after the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter on UCSB launched the campaign for this BDS resolution on “Yom HaShoah,” Holocaust Remembrance Day. This move was met with widespread condemnation from academic and Jewish communities across the United States. The SJP chapter claimed that the scheduling decision was made for “purely…pragmatic reasons.” This statement comes across as bizarre given the fact that the very same SJP chapter had attempted a BDS motion the year prior, also purposefully near Yom HaShoah. More than one hundred students signed up to speak on May 11th, with many pointing to the accusations of anti-Semitism that surrounded the BDS resolution. The campus group Students Supporting Israel (SSI) made a large investment in helping to bring to light the reasons for the anti-BDS effort. SSI president Nate Erez said that the motion was “no more than a clever disguise to achieve a much more sinister agenda. This is a direct attack on the one Jewish state in the world.” This resolution also comes directly after two incidents on UCSB’s campus last week that helped shape the outcome of the vote. The first was the two cases of vandalism levied against a pro-Israel peace mural on campus. The second event was the erecting of an “apartheid wall” on campus which featured falsified quotes from Israeli leaders.
The Maryland State House Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott called in his budget for laws which will stop state support for businesses that endorse or adhere to boycotts of Israel. Seventeen states have currently enacted anti-BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction) legislation, with states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio having done so in just the last few months. The Texas law address state pension plans. In a news brief released by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Abbott is quoted as stating that “[w]hile Texas pension plans have the goal of maximizing returns…this mission should not come at the expense of our principles.” Abbott elaborated further, saying that “Texas funds…should be prohibited from making investments that directly fund our nation’s enemies or those…with stated anti-Israel policies.” Texas, like many other states, currently bans state pensions and retirement funds from investing in Iran. Abbott met with Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, last year. During his time with the ambassador, as reported by The Algemeiner, Abbott stated that both Iran and the BDS movement against Israel “actively engage” in attempts to delegitimize the Jewish state. Texas is no stranger to BDS and BDS-aligned groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Governor Abbott’s calls for Texas anti-BDS legislation mirror the attempts by Maryland legislators. Maryland lawmakers and Jewish advocacy groups are currently putting the final touches on a bill that would ban companies that support the BDS movement from doing business with the state. This new bill comes after a failed attempt to introduce similar legislation last April. The previous attempt never saw the proposed bill introduced, which opponents of the bill credit to “intense opposition from public and state legislators.” The text for the proposed bill uses language similar to that of U.S. Senator Ben Cardin’s (D-MD) anti-BDS bill, which defined BDS as “actions…intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations” with Israel. Cardin’s anti-BDS bill, H.R. 6298, was not enacted. Both the Texas and Maryland attempts at anti-BDS legislation will face stiff resistance from the active members of BDS groups within both states. Critics of the Texas legislation claim it “infringes upon the First Amendment right to free speech,” specifically in regards to state issued funds. Defenders of anti-BDS legislation, such as Eugene Volokh, have responded that such anti-BDS bills do not restrict speech. Volokh explains that “a [business] doesn’t lose [federal/state] money just for condemning Israel or even praising a boycott, but only for actually boycotting Israel: refusing to deal with Israeli institutions or scholars.” Maryland’s legislation may face more intense opposition, since Mayland BDS groups believe that they helped to stop similar legislation from being passed last year, a belief that will no doubt embolden their resistance. Regardless of the challenges, legislators in both states are pressing on in their pursuit of legislation against the undue pressures targeting Israel and Israel’s supporters. BDS is rapidly losing ground to the onslaught of legislation it faces at both the state and federal level. The BDS campaign’s attempts to stifle academic freedom and to demonize Israel are facing stiff opposition from an informed public, a public that became informed due to the now publicly litigated nature of the anti-Israel movement. Every attempt at a boycott motion, and the subsequent reaction from the states, leads to discrediting of the BDS movement. With more and more states now drafting anti-BDS legislation and several bills introduced through congress as well, it is only a matter of time before the BDS movement loses what little credibility it has left.
Keating Hall at Fordham University Fordham University denied a request by students to form a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter on campus. The university, a Jesuit school in New York City, does not allow student organizations which promote the interests of one country. As Fordham’s Dean of Students Keith Eldredge wrote in an email released by Inside Higher Ed, the goals of the SJP chapter would “clearly conflict with and run contrary to the mission and values of the university.” The group’s political agenda—including support of the BDS movement—and potential polarization were key reasons for Fordham’s denial. “While students are encouraged to promote diverse political points of view, and we encourage conversation and debate on all topics, I cannot support an organization whose sole purpose is advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country,” writes Eldredge in the email, according to Inside Higher Ed . “Specifically, the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel presents a barrier to open dialogue and mutual learning and understanding.” According to a written statement from college spokesman Bob Howe, “for the university’s purposes, the country of origin of the student organizers is irrelevant, as is their particular political stance.” The bottom line is that the SJP group would act more like a political lobby than a traditional campus club. In the face of opposition from Palestine Legal, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the Center for Constitutional Rights on the grounds that the ban violates students’ civil rights, Fordham University emphasizes that it has and will continue to protect free speech on campus. “Regardless of the club’s status, students, faculty, and staff are of course free to voice their opinions on Palestine, or any other issue,” according to a university statement. Presently, the university does not have a pro-Israel student group. There is a Jewish students’ club which does not mention Israel. SJP chapters at institutions across the nation have garnered a reputation for stirring controversy. They organize programs for “Israeli Apartheid Week” and plan “mock eviction” events that simulate the removal of Palestinians from their homes. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), SJP is “the primary organizer of anti-Israel events on U.S. college campuses and the group most responsible for bringing divestment resolutions to votes in front of student governments.” ADL maintains that since 2001, the SJP “has consistently demonized Israel, describing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians as racist and apartheid-like, and comparing Israelis to Nazis or Israel to the Jim Crow-era U.S.” Fordham’s refusal to support a SJP student chapter comes on the heels of disruptions by other SJP chapters. Last year, UC Irvine issued a written warning to its SJP student group, effective until March 29, 2017, for violation of the UCI Code of Conduct’s provision prohibiting “obstruction or disruption of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedures, or other University activities.” In May of 2016, an angry mob of fifty UCI SJP chapter members disrupted a small event held by a Jewish student group. The mob blocked entrances and exits, chanted anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and pro-Palestinian sentiments, and chased Jewish student Eliana Kopley. LDB issued a warning letter to UCI Chancellor Howard Gilman, calling for stronger condemnation of the aggressive SJP protest. Northeastern University suspended its SJP chapter for one academic year from 2014-2015. The SJP group slipped 600 mock eviction notices under dorm room doors to symbolize what the chapter considered arbitrary evictions of Arab residents in Israel. In the past, they had also vandalized university property, disrupted other student organization events, and failed to acquire proper permits, provide a civility statement, and meet with university advisors. The efforts of Fordham University, along with action taken at UC Irvine and Northeastern University, are steps in the right direction to fighting anti-Semitism and securing justice for Jewish students.