The University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (UIUC) recently announced the formation of the Chancellor’s Advisory Council on Jewish and Campus Life. By creating the Council, UIUC is making good on one of the commitments it made in its “Joint Statement on Anti-Semitism.” In that Statement, to which the Brandeis Center is a signatory, the university pledged to take a number of concrete steps to address anti-Semitism on its campus and support Jewish students. The university promised to create an advisory council on Jewish and campus life to “assist the chancellor and university leadership to identify opportunities to enhance the campus environment for all students, faculty, and staff, and to advance its commitment to an inclusive community where all feel welcome.” UIUC’s Chancellor stated that the creation of the Council will “help us advance our commitment to an inclusive community where anti-Semitism and other forms of hate will not be tolerated.” Former Chancellor, Richard Herman, and Erez Cohen, the executive director of Illini Hillel, will co-chair the Advisory Council. Other notable members include Rabbi Dovid Tiechtel, director of the Chabad Center for Jewish Life, and the assistant director of the Gies College of Business. The Council also includes UIUC alumni, students, and professors. In November of 2020, the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation into a complaint filed on behalf of UIUC’s Jewish students, alleging that UIUC has allowed a hostile environment to proliferate on its campus in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint was filed by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP together with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law in March 2020, with consultation from the Jewish United Fund and Hillel International. OCR’s investigation of the complaint is ongoing.
March 9, 2021: The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law (LDB) is hiring! LDB is looking for an exceptional attorney to join our legal team’s work to stem the rising tide of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in higher education. From the University of Southern California to the University of Illinois and Tufts University, the Brandeis Center is leading a strategic effort utilizing legal tools to effectively combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism on university campuses. Indeed, the demand for LDB’s legal expertise, advocacy, training and educational initiatives is greater than ever before. The Staff Attorney will join the Brandeis Center as part of the organization’s expansion to meet the increasing demand for LDB’s expertise, guidance and resources. LDB’s Director of Legal Initiatives, Denise Katz-Prober, commented, “At LDB, we are hearing with increasing frequency from Jewish students, faculty and staff, who face anti-Jewish hostility, anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination on campuses across the country. At a time when LDB’s legal guidance and leadership is needed more than ever, I look forward to welcoming a new attorney, who will work with the rest of LDB’s team to protect and advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people.” Interested candidates should submit a cover letter, curriculum vitae, writing sample (less than 10 pages) and law school transcript to info@brandeiscenter.com. Read the full job description below. ***************************************************************************** The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law Staff Attorney We’re looking for a smart and creative attorney, dedicated to working tirelessly to defeat anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Location: Washington, DC. Telework available within the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Hiring Institution: The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc., is an independent, nonprofit civil rights organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. LDB develops law-based initiatives to combat campus anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism. We utilize legal advocacy, research and education to engage and train administrators, and empower and protect students from anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination. Principal duties: The Staff Attorney will be responsible for managing a docket of cases involving anti-Semitism and discrimination that targets students in American colleges and universities; organizing and overseeing LDB’s Law Student Chapter and JIGSAW (Justice Initiative Guiding Student Activists Worldwide) Fellowship programs; delivering written and oral presentations to a variety of audiences; interviewing witnesses and potential complainants; researching substantive issues of federal and state law; conducting intake activities, including assessment of potential actions; preparing legal complaints, briefs, and related documents; and researching and analyzing public policy issues. Additional duties may include interacting with complainants, witnesses, government officials, public interest advocates, other nonprofit organizations, university administrators, activists and/or the public; assisting in the preparation of conferences, workshops, lectures and symposia; preparing continuing legal education materials; developing public policy white papers and related policy materials; and generally providing trusted legal and policy support. The Staff Attorney may also be responsible for supervising the work of interns, clerks, and assistants. Qualifications: The successful candidate should have 0-2 years of legal experience, a J.D. and excellent academic credentials from an ABA-accredited law school; maintain the highest standards of integrity; exhibit excellence in legal analysis and writing; and display, at all times and to all persons, a courteous, professional and cooperative attitude. A demonstrated interest in LDB’s mission is preferred. Compensation: Non-profit market competitive. Travel: Travel may be required. Application Process and Timing: Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis. Please send inquiries and/or a resume by electronic mail to info@brandeiscenter.com, together with a letter describing your interest in the position, a writing sample, and a list of references. We regret that only applicants selected for interviews will be contacted. No phone calls or faxes, please. The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc., is an equal opportunity employer.
Spurred by the explosive growth of global anti-Semitism and concerned by the lack of outrage against it, the American Christian Leaders for Israel (ACLI) network has been hosting a series of informative webinars on anti-Semitism, how to define and approach it, and its relationship with Christianity. The series began with a presentation from U.S. State Department Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Elan Carr and U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom member Gary Bauer, who discussed the U.S. governmental approach to combatting anti-Semitism. Brandeis Center President, Alyza Lewin, delivered remarks for the second webinar in the series, entitled “Anti-Semitism in the USA.” Ms. Lewin discussed how students on campus feel the brunt of anti-Semitic activity when they express their ethnic identity as Jews through Zionism. Ms. Lewin explained the problem that “much of society does not comprehend what contemporary anti-Semitism is,” and that “Most people are either unable, or perhaps unwilling, to distinguish between a discussion of Israel’s policies, on the one hand, and statements of support for the Jewish homeland – that are for many Jews an expression of their pride and their ethnic identity – on the other.” Ms. Lewin followed these key points with an intricate explanation of concrete action steps that can be taken to address the global phenomena of Jew-hatred. One of these crucial steps is to define anti-Semitism using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Definition (IHRA). Also the world must understand “that for many Zionists – Jews and Christians alike – Zionism is not a viewpoint, rather, it is an integral component of our identity,” and that discriminating on the basis of this identity is unlawful. To conclude, Ms. Lewin explained why anti-Semitism is a global human rights issue, one that undermines the values of respect, inclusion, and equality that are necessary to sustain a functioning democracy. Ms. Lewin insisted that we must define, combat, and address anti-Semitism from all angles as we continue to mobilize our nation’s leaders against this shapeshifting threat. Following Ms. Lewin’s presentation, Liora Rez, cofounder of stopantisemitism.org, addressed the most prevalent anti-Semitic tropes and myths and discussed how they are being used throughout social media and society at large. The remainder of the ACLI anti-Semitism webinar series included presentations from Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Gerald McDermott on historical Christian anti-Semitism, and concluded with Mr. Noam Katz, Deputy Director General of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs reflecting on the effect of anti-Semitism on international relations with Israel. The ACLI webinar series reminds us that anti-Semitism is not just a “Jewish problem;” it is a global human rights issue and combatting it is integral to upholding democracy. As the ACLI’s webinar series proves, the coalition of those who want to combat Jew-hatred is broad, compassionate, and determined. Watch Ms. Lewin’s webinar here. Watch the entire webinar series here.
A single definition of anti-Semitism is an essential tool in the effort to combat anti-Semitism on schoolgrounds, college campuses, and society at large. The LDB center has long maintained that “good definitions improve prevention by increasing consistency, facilitating comparison across data collection systems, and enabling the comparison of research on intervention and prevention programs.” We have urged its adoption by the federal, state, and local governments; as well as by universities and other organizations and groups. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism (the IHRA definition), which includes contemporary examples of anti-Semitism, is currently the most prominent definition of anti-Semitism and widely accepted educational tool worldwide for understanding and recognizing manifestations of anti-Semitism. The IHRA definition states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Importantly, the IHRA working definition includes contemporary examples of anti-Semitism such as, “[h]olding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel;” “applying double standards by requiring of…[Israel] behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;” and “[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” In December of 2019, President Trump signed the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, stating that “all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI shall consider the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).” The order served as an effective vehicle for the policy change that LDB Founder and Chairman Kenneth Marcus has advanced for years, namely the primary policy recommendation from The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford 2015): “For American civil rights enforcement agencies, the way forward is clear. Whatever else they may do to address resurgent anti-Semitism, the first step would be to adopt the [Working Definition of anti-Semitism].” Although the Executive Order is an effective step forward in this push to effectively combat anti-Semitism, universities and others are integral agents in the fight against anti-Semitism more widely. Adopting the IHRA definition on college campuses and in organizational groups provides the educational framework to raise awareness about the nature of contemporary anti-Semitism, regardless of whether the university contemplates a potential federal investigation into any particular incident. In addition, the Executive Order can be retracted or changed at any time with the stroke of a pen by any future president; having institutional frameworks that uphold and recognize the IHRA definition within organizations ensures that Jewish citizens, students, and group members continue to remain protected from discrimination. Some critics of the IHRA definition wrongly accuse bodies which support its adoption of curtailing free speech and liberties provided under the First Amendment. These arguments, while noteworthy to address, fail to recognize that the IHRA definition can be (and is) implemented by universities and others as an educational tool in a way that does not censor or suppress free speech. The IHRA definition can be an effective mechanism for determining intent and evaluating unlawful conduct, hitting at the root causes and manifestations of modern anti-Semitism. In addition, the IHRA definition directly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” providing ample space for productive, critical conversations surrounding Israel. As Jewish students face increasing hostility and discrimination on U.S. campuses nationwide, universities have adopted and endorsed the IHRA definition as a potent tool to educate their communities about what anti-Semitism looks like. For instance, in 2018, Western Washington University adopted the definition based on recommendations of the university’s Task Force on Preventing and Responding to Anti-Semitism. In August 2020, Florida State University’s (FSU) President publicly endorsed the IHRA definition and its contemporary examples and urged the FSU community to educate itself on the definition and its examples. And in September 2020, New York University agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition into its revised non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy and related training programs as part of its settlement agreement with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. University student body governments are following suit. In November of 2020, Brooklyn College, Northeastern University, The City College of New York, and Saint Lawrence University joined the growing number of student body governments across the country in passing resolutions that recognize or adopt the IHRA definition. This trend in student activism demonstrates the tenacity and drive of Jewish students and their allies in the fight against anti-Semitism. It also shows the growing recognition that a clear, comprehensive and uniform definition of anti-Semitism is necessary to understand, identify and effectively respond to anti-Semitic incidents on campus. As the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ahmed Shaheed, recognized in 2019, the IHRA definition provides an effective tool “for use in education and awareness-raising and for monitoring and responding to manifestations of antisemitism.” Around the world, the acceptance and use of the IHRA definition has continued to grow as well. State governments have adopted the IHRA definition, seeking to push back against rising anti-Jewish prejudice. Albania became the first Muslim-majority country to do so in November 2020, and a growing list of countries (Germany, France, Serbia, The Netherlands, and more) continue to recognize the importance of this adoption. On November 4th, the University of Cambridge General Board agreed to adopt the definition, citing its usefulness for “understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in our society,” and 20% of all universities in the United Kingdom have adopted the IHRA definition. The University of Oxford, for example, recently adopted the IHRA definition, citing its usefulness in “interpreting and understanding anti-semitism.” In Canada, Ontario became Canada’s first province to adopt the IHRA definition when Ontario’s cabinet passed an Order in Council approving Bill 168, which adopts the IHRA working definition of antisemitism as law in Ontario. The Ontario law, currently under consideration by a standing committee on justice policy, requires the Ontario government to be guided by IHRA and its eleven illustrative examples “when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting it antisemitism.” Other organizations continue to recognize the definition’s usefulness; in October, the largest nongovernmental organization of Imams in the world, the Global Imams Council (GIC), followed suit in their adoption of the definition. The Council of the European Union additionally recently urged the broader use of the IHRA definition, citing the power that the definition holds “as a guiding tool for better identifying and addressing this scourge [of the rise of threats towards Jewish people].” As anti-Semitism surges on American campuses and beyond, an increasing number of governments, campuses, and organizations world-wide have endorsed and utilized the IHRA definition and its examples; these bodies have recognized that the IHRA definition and its examples provide a powerful and necessary framework for understanding, recognizing and responding to anti-Semitism on university campuses and beyond.
The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law (LDB) joined a coalition of 30 national organizations, led by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), that sent a letter to the leaders of 165 colleges and universities, urging them to address the surge of anti-Semitism on campuses across the country. The letter describes the challenging reality that Jewish students are facing on college campuses across the country: Many Jewish students are feeling harassed, afraid to express their Jewish identity — including their support for Israel — and afraid for their emotional well- being and physical safety…. [T]he situation has worsened for Jews in the U.S. and around the world… Antisemitism on our college campuses has been equally alarming, particularly because the antisemites are finding new ways to target and persecute Jews. There are still incidents of antisemitic vandalism on campus, with mezuzahs being ripped off of students’ doors in their residence halls, and swastikas defacing campus property. In addition, Jewish students are under siege from antisemitism related to Israel and Zionism. This form of antisemitism masquerades as legitimate political discourse, but in fact, it is yet another expression of Jew-hatred, causing Jewish students to feel harassed, threatened and even afraid for their safety. The letter explicitly cites egregious examples of anti-Semitism that occurred at New York University, the University of Southern California and Oklahoma City University, and reminds the universities of their legal obligations to protect Jewish students under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Executive Order on Combatting Anti-Semitism. The letter describes a disturbing example, where anti-Semitism was tolerated at an academic conference about Gaza in 2019 that was co-sponsored by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: [The conference] blatantly targeted Jews. The conference featured a rapper who announced to the audience that he was going to sing “my antisemitic song” and encouraged the audience to join in. Urging them to “think of Mel Gibson – go that antisemitic – I cannot be antisemitic alone,” the rapper sang the refrain, “Oh, I’m in love with a Jew.” The audience – which presumably included university staff, students, faculty and “scholars” – sang along, laughing. The letter further recommends that universities take specific steps to ameliorate hostility towards Jewish students on campus. These recommendations include: responding promptly to anti-Semitic incidents by issuing public condemnations of anti-Semitism; utilizing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism to educate the university community about different forms of anti-Semitism; and mandating training on anti-Semitism for all students and university staff that uses the IHRA definition as a guide for understanding the many manifestations of anti-Semitism. The Brandeis Center is pleased to support this timely initiative, spearheaded by the ZOA, along with other organizations that are engaged in the critical effort to combat anti-Semitism at institutions of higher learning. Read the press release here
In a letter organized by the AMCHA Initiative, 69 organizations, including the Brandeis Center, urged the Department of Education to ensure that National Resource Center (NRC) faculty do not implement academic boycotts at universities. The letter, addressed to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, gave two examples of recent events held at the University of Michigan and New York University, both of which were organized and funded by Department of Education-designated Middle East Studies NRCs. The letter notes that NRCs “were established by Title VI of the Higher Education Act in order to equip university students and faculty with a full and unbiased understanding of regions and countries vital to U.S. security. The federal legislation providing these NRCs with millions of taxpayer dollars stipulates that the funding is specifically intended ‘to promote access to research and training overseas, including through linkages with overseas institutions.” An academic boycott, however, as the letter points out, calls for the exact opposite: it seeks to deny access to research, training and education in and about the targeted country, and to break linkages with the targeted country’s educational institutions. And while faculty members certainly have the right to express support for BDS, including an academic boycott of Israel, were these NRC directors or any of their fellow faculty to implement the academic boycott at their centers in such a way as to restrict or limit the academic opportunities of their students or colleagues, their behavior would contravene the explicitly stated purpose of their federal funding. The official guidelines of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) encourage faculty to “work toward shutting down study abroad programs in Israel and refuse to write recommendations for students who want to attend them; scuttle their colleagues’ research collaborations with Israeli universities and scholars; and cancel or shut down educational events organized by students or faculty featuring Israeli leaders or scholars, or that seek to ‘normalize’ Israel by presenting it in anything but a negative light.” Any NRC that adheres to these boycott strategies would be in violation of their federal funding requirements. Overall, six of the 15 Middle East Studies NRCs have directors who have expressed public support for the academic boycott against Israel, and two others have directors who have called to shut down their university’s study abroad program in Israel. Additionally, all but one of the 15 NRCs have faculty members who support the academic boycott of Israel. Supporting the academic boycott of Israel does not necessarily mean that the NRC directors or faculty will fulfill the PACBI guidelines for a boycott. However, six NRC directors signed a letter in 2014 that stated, “we pledge not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions.” Studies in 2016 and 2017 have shown that pro-BDS directors and faculty members are more likely to host events that either promote the BDS movement or host BDS speakers. When applying for Title VI HEOA grant applications, these pro-BDS directors have stated that their programs offer educational and research opportunities to study in and about Israel, as well as linkages with Israeli institutions. The letter notes, “Were these same directors to implement the academic boycott they publicly espouse, they would be working to subvert the very opportunities and linkages they have promised their programs would provide, which would constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation of their programs on a federal grant application.” The signatories to the letter emphasize that they “do not intend in any way to impede or suppress a faculty member’s freedom of speech or right to engage in a personal boycott. But were a faculty member to take steps to obstruct or prevent others from accessing opportunities to engage with overseas institutions through research or training, it would clearly violate the stated purpose of the law.” The 69 organizations offered the following recommendations to the Department of Education to address this problem: The Department of Education should issue a statement warning NRC directors and affiliated faculty that implementing an academic boycott of one of the countries in the NRC’s purview would be a direct subversion of the stated purpose of Title VI funding. Area studies program directors applying for or renewing NRC or FLAS funding should be required to sign a statement affirming that neither they nor any of their program’s affiliated faculty will, as part of their academic responsibilities, implement an academic boycott of any of the countries within the purview of their program in such a way as to restrict or limit the academic opportunities of their students or colleagues.
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
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) recently announced they were seeking specialists to serve as peer reviewers for their 2018 Title VI–Office of International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant competitions. Among the programs offering funding in 2018 include the National Resource Centers Program, which “provides grants to establish, strengthen, and operate centers that serve as national resources for teaching, training, and research in modern languages and area studies.” For more information on how to become a Peer Reviewer for Title VI grants, you can click here. As the Brandeis Center and many other organizations have long pointed out, these programs, which receive federal funding under Title VI of the Higher Education Opportunities Act (HEOA), are far from objective and often incorporate biased, anti-Israel programming as part of the curriculum. In January, the Brandeis Center, along with thirteen other national Jewish, educational and civil rights organizations, co-authored a letter to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, urging the Committee to amend Title VI of the HEOA and approve certain sections of Title VI of the PROSPER Act as adopted by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which also seeks to reauthorize the HEOA. Title VI of the HEOA provides federal funding to international studies and foreign language centers at universities nationwide. Enacted to advance national security and international relations interests, and requiring centers to “reflect diverse perspective and a wide range of views,” Title VI has fallen far short of its original goal. In reality, many of these centers conflict with these original aims by suppressing the academic freedom of students and faculty with contrarian views. This one-sided story telling is especially relevant when it comes to the Near Eastern Studies Centers’ teachings on Israel, which is frequently biased and often offers only an anti-Israel perspective. Previously, in a 2014 Joint Statement, the Brandeis Center and 9 other concerned organizations authored a Joint Statement to Congress on the misuse of federal funding under Title VI. Also in 2014, the Brandeis Center authored a White Paper on “The Morass of Middle East Studies: Title VI of the Higher Education Act and Federally Funded Area Studies.” This analysis of Middle East Studies programs yielded several important findings, including that “no proper complaint-resolution procedure exists to ensure compliance with the HEOA’s key Diverse Perspectives requirement.” Building on this analysis, the Brandeis Center posited several recommendations to universities, the Department of Education, and Congress. Included in these recommendations was for the Department of Education to ensure compliance by strictly evaluating each application of Title VI funding and periodically monitoring each program. The PROSPER Act, which has already made it out of the House Committee, offers several marked improvements to Title VI funding process that would substantially cut down on these centers’ pernicious anti-Israel rhetoric. As both the House and Senate aim to amend the HEOA during its reauthorization, Congress has an opportunity to end Title VI’s discriminatory funding.
By: Joel Siegal, of Siegal Richardson LLC and member of LDB’s Legal Advisory Board. On April 5, 2018, The New York Times printed the obituary of Professor Mel Gordon, a University of California Berkeley theater professor. A copy of his obituary can be found here. As described in the obituary, in some ways, Professor Gordon was a typical Berkeley “progressive” theater professor, intrigued by his craft, intellectual, with an insatiable curiosity about his subjects. This passion was evident to those around him. One longtime colleague described Professor Gordon as: A provocative, risqué storyteller who clashed with colleagues about how to teach acting. But he was “a wonderful, maverick researcher and a source of admiration and amazement by people who consulted him.” However, the obituary does not mention Professor Gordon’s significance in helping to protect the rights of students on campus who have brought Title VI claims against the University. Professor Gordon was not an advocate for Israel nor for Jewish students, but was rather an advocate for safe campuses free from bullying or hostility. When myself and Neal Sher brought a Title VI action against the University of California in Berkeley, few people believed that a prestigious school like Berkeley would allow for a hostile environment against Jewish students. We litigated the issue of whether the Students for Justice in Palestine’s one week, “performance art piece” called “apartheid week” was a legitimate exercise in Free Speech or instead a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We argued that it was more akin to the Passion Play of the middle ages, where anti-Semites would perform a play in the center of town, where Jews were portrayed as blood thirsty barbicans who had defied Christ, and Jewish townspeople were in harm’s way for weeks following the performance. This was the evidence of what occurred on the Berkeley campus in the days and weeks following apartheid week. I urge every reader of this blog to read the declaration that Professor Gordon prepared in the Felber case. This declaration discusses the duplicitous nature of members of SJP in Professor Gordon’s experience. Paragraph 8, of Professor Gordon’s declaration is particularly insightful: “As the undergraduate advisor in my department, I frequently solicit personal information from students about their overall welfare and academic progress. On a half dozen occasions, I have heard complaints about some of the intifada demonstrations (apartheid week)…As a professor of theater, I am familiar with agitprop theater demonstrations. In my view, and the view of the students I spoke with, these apartheid week demonstrations with students brandishing realistic looking weapons are menacing and intimidating….” Professor Gordon’s declaration was submitted to the Federal Court, and demonstrated that the apartheid week demonstrations by SJP went beyond the pale of protected Free Speech. Litigation in federal court is a means of protecting students.
On June 19, 2017, The Lawfare Project and Winston & Strawn LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of six students and several members of the Bay Area Jewish community against San Francisco State University (“SFSU”). The complaint alleges that the university has fostered a climate of anti-Semitism on campus, violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection, as well as their rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Leslie Wong, the California State University Board of Trustees, and other top administrative officials were named as defendants. SFSU Anti-Semitism The lawsuit was prompted by alleged complicity of university administrators and police officers in the disruption of an April 2016 event, when San Francisco Hillel invited the Mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, to speak on campus. At the event, audience members were allegedly “subjected to genocidal and offensive chants and expletives by a raging mob that used bullhorns to intimidate and drown out the Mayor’s speech and physically threaten and intimidate members of the mostly-Jewish audience.” Protesters yelled and chanted “Intifada,” [Arabic for “uprising,” the term “Intifada” has come to mean a call for violence against innocent Israeli civilians. The First and Second Intifadas in Israel resulted in 170 bombings perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli civilians between 1989-2008], “Get the [expletive] off our campus,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” [the destruction of Israel entirely] while university administrators allowed the disruption to continue and instructed campus police to “stand down.” The plaintiffs also allege that Hillel was unfairly excluded from a campus “Know Your Rights” fair aimed at members of vulnerable populations on Feb. 18, 2017. The complaint contends that the way administrators handled the April confrontation and the most recent exclusion is consistent with other incidents on SFSU’s campus over the years. According to the complaint, “SFSU and its administrators have knowingly fostered this discrimination… SFSU has not merely fostered and embraced anti-Jewish hostility — it has systematically supported … student groups as they have doggedly organized their efforts to target, threaten, and intimidate Jewish students on campus and deprive them of their civil rights and their ability to feel safe and secure as they pursue their education.” Readers may recall how a SFSU professor of ethnic studies, Rabab Abdulhadi, used university tax-payer funds to finance a student trip to the Palestinian territories, where they were met by Leila Khaled, a Palestinian heralded as the first woman to have hijacked an airplane in an act of terror in 1969; or former student Mohammad Hammad, who infamously posted a picture of himself holding a blade on social media, saying: “I seriously cannot get over how much I love this blade. It is the sharpest thing I own and cuts through everything like butter, and just holding it makes me want to stab an Israeli soldier.” Further, the complaint notes that “no actions were ever taken by SFSU against the disruptive students, no disciplinary charges were ever filed, and no sanctions were ever imposed against the groups or students responsible for committing these acknowledged violations.” Lawyers for the students hope the case will set a precedent under Title VI, which protects Jewish students from being targeted for their ethnic or ancestral identity. “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the underpinning of the modern American ethos of equal protection and anti-discrimination. This case isn’t about Jews, it’s about equal protection under the law,” Brooke Goldstein, director of The Lawfare Project, said in a written statement. “If the courts fail to apply Title VI in this context, we are creating a massive loophole that will ultimately be exploited at some point to target other marginalized minority communities. If we refuse to enforce anti-discrimination law for Jews, if we say Jews don’t deserve equal protection, it will erode constitutional protections for everyone.”