For several years, the Brandeis Center has urged changes in how the Department of Education (ED) collects data that would help to protect religious groups from discrimination. ED has finally agreed to do so. Commenting on the new development, LDB’s Kenneth L. Marcus said, “We commend ED for adopting this new policy, in line with the Brandeis Center’s recommendations, of collecting data on religious-based harassment and discrimination in public schools. The next step is to bring enforcement into line with the new data and ensure that students of all faiths receive the full protection of the law.” In 2013, the Brandeis Center submitted formal comments to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) urging revisions to the Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). Specifically, the Brandeis Center urged expansion of the CRDC to include data on religious bullying and harassment. Since 2009, the CRDC has collected data on harassment based on sex, race, color, national origin, and disability. This data has been important in developing policy guidance for public schools. In the 2013 formal comments submitted to ED, Marcus stated,“[e]xpanding CRDC data to include reports of religious bullying and harassment is an important step towards protecting religious minorities from these forms of discrimination.” The Center further added that it is imperative that the Department of Education and the federal government provide the same level of protection to students of faith as other minority groups. Over the summer, ED announced it would be implementing specific actions that will help “confront [religious] discrimination and promote inclusive school environments.” The Department introduced actions that include the creation of a website on religious discrimination and the creation of an updated civil rights complaint form. ED has taken the actions that Marcus and the Brandeis Center have long recommended and has announced that they will be collecting data on the number of incidents of religious-based bullying and harassment that have taken place within public schools. This new policy will require that schools, across the country, submit data on incidents of religious-based bullying to the Office for Civil Rights through the Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection. ED says the purpose of this data collection is to help policy makers and educators understand the scope and severity of religious-based bullying in public schools. In turn, educators are hopeful that the data collection will help protect students from further harassment and bullying. In a formal press release, Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon said, “We will continue to work with schools and communities to stop discrimination and harassment so that all students have an equal opportunity to participate in school no matter who they are, where they come from or which faith, if any, they subscribe to.” Marcus added, “It’s important to have good data, but it’s even more important to have strong enforcement.”
Conference participates and speakers during the second day. On February 21-22, the Louis D. Brandeis Center hosted its third annual National Law Student Leadership Conference in Berkeley, California. The conference brought together 26 law student leaders from 14 law schools across the country, and educated these students on topics including civil rights law; international law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict; international anti-Semitism and the European response; and how to use legal tools to combat anti-Semitism and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, while in law school and in their future legal careers. Additionally, the students were presented with networking opportunities amongst their peers, attorneys, and legal scholars. “The LDB conference provided me with a comprehensive overview of anti-Semitism and methods to combat such bigotry in a very brief two-day period,” said Saman Azimtash (Univ. of Minnesota, JD ’18, MBA ’19). “It was an incredibly stimulating and educational conference.” Law students enjoyed the learning and networking opportunities the conference provided. Students were given the opportunity to engage with each other in a dialogue about the issues facing them as aspiring lawyers and proponents of civil rights through a series of lectures, panels, and roundtable discussions. With several prominent figures in academia, government and professional law as guest speakers and fellow attendees, law students where also given an opportunity to enhance their knowledge and participate in discussions with multiple legal experts. Michael Engelberg and students. Law students from LDB chapters at UC Berkeley, Penn, Emory, University of Virginia, and many others were in attendance in addition to students in the process of forming their own chapters. The LDB law student chapter initiative, launched in 2014, has since expanded to 18 chapters nationwide. LDB chapters fill an important gap in American legal education, offering educational programming that connects students’ legal education to pressing Jewish civil rights issues. Coffee break conversation with LDB President Marcus Many of the students in attendance were members of their chapter’s leadership board. The conference’s speakers covered a variety of legal and political topics relating to the Brandeis Center’s mission: empowering student leadership, federal protection of the civil rights of Jewish students, and fighting anti-Semitism so that the culture on American college campuses can change into one where anti-Semitism is taken as seriously as other forms of discrimination. UC Berkeley Law Professor, Steven Davidoff Solomon The conference kicked off with LDB staff attorney Aviva Vogelstein, and UC Berkeley Law Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon, addressing the students at the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union building at UC Berkeley. After Vogelstein welcomed the students and guests to the conference, Professor Solomon began the event by encouraging the students, telling them “you are our future.” He urged participants to start playing the offensive rather than the defensive when it comes to fighting anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli activity on campus. Professor Solomon illustrated that how, even though Israel experiences difficulties like many other nations, the Israeli state is doing well as one of the countries with the most freedoms in its region, and has come a long way. He went on to discuss the disturbing movement of anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe, as well as how academic discourse over the state of Israel has turned into “political venom”. Noting how anti-Semitism has been “dressed up as pseudo-academic jargon”, he explained how such rhetoric ignored the facts. He left the audience with two questions to remember throughout the conference: ‘How do we stand up and tell the facts’, and ‘how can we protect the next generation?’ LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus delivers opening remarks. LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus then gave opening remarks, noting the importance of the conference’s location. He stated how it was fitting to have a civil rights conference in a building named after a great civil rights leader, who fought for fair housing, for the end of segregation, and against anti-Semitism. Dr. King once said: “when people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.” Marcus went on to explain how our location was also near the site of where Mario Savio, one of the key members of the Berkeley Free Speech movement, made his famous “Bodies Upon the Gears” speech. Then decades later in the same spot, a young Jewish student, Jessica Felber, who did just that as she held up an “Israel wants Peace” sign, was assailed by a shopping cart pushed towards her by an anti-Israel student. Marcus then noted the alarming joint report by LDB and Trinity College, which revealed that 54% of the Jewish students surveyed had experienced anti-Semitism on their campuses during the 2013-14 academic year. He explained the trends in anti-Semitism in the United States, as well as globally, and discussed how the spillover effects from movements such as BDS can create a hostile environment for Jewish students. Marcus also detailed how legal advocacy can be a step to raising public awareness of such incidents and how LDB chapters play a critical role in the fight against campus anti-Semitism. “What students glean from conference,” Marcus stated, “is for their clients in the future, for current undergrads that they may mentor, and for their communities, as it will be important for them to support those who take a stand against discrimination.” Students deliberate over the answer to a Title VI sample question. Marcus and Vogelstein then gave a workshop on Title VI, and discussed how students could combat campus anti-Semitism and BDS at their universities. This workshop was aimed at explaining the protections offered by Title VI, and educating the students on legal strategies they can utilize against anti-Semitism, as well as legal tools on the both federal and state levels available to them. The workshop also gave an engaging exercise on what constitutes a Title VI case, which gave students the opportunity to challenge their knowledge and discuss examples with each other. To conclude her presentation, Vogelstein explained how BDS campaigns can violate school rules with their actions, such as illegal flyering, unlawful access to dorms, breaking ‘time, place, and manner’ rules, and restricting pedestrian access during their demonstrations. Speakers Arthur Zeidman and Joel Siegal. After the workshop, participants headed to a delicious dinner at the Great Hall inside of the Bancroft Hotel, where they were treated to remarks by Arthur Zeidman, Regional Director of the U.S Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, and an address by Joel Siegel, attorney at Joel H. Siegal and Associated Council and member of LDB’s Legal Advisory Board. Zeidman highlighted how it is important to record incidents of anti-Semitism that students may see on their campuses. He explained how documentation can make a difference in a case, and urged students to “be strong, be brave.” Siegal then gave an informative address entitled “Using the Courts to Address Anti-Semitism, Racism and Bullying at Schools and Universities,” that drew upon his extensive experience. He detailed several cases that he had represented, such as the case of Jessica Felber, and explained their backgrounds, strategies, as well as outcomes. He encouraged students to be more proactive and to become involved in their student governments so that they may help to make an impact. LDB President Marcus and LDB Staff Attorney Vogelstein address the conference. The next morning’s events began with President Marcus and Vogelstein’s discussion of LDB chapter activities, such as the Brandeis Center’s impressive and extensive list of speakers that can be invited for events at each chapter’s university, as well as other chapter programs and functions. Vogelstein also explained the many opportunities LDB offers its law students, such as pro bono research and career opportunities, including summer clerkships and post-grad fellowships. She also discussed how chapters play an important role in helping LDB monitor college campuses and in achieving strong administrator responses. Prof. Bell discusses international law and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Avi Bell, a professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law, then gave an enlightening presentation on “International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” Professor Bell debunked the myths that Israel is the worst violator of international law and human rights, by noting the Human Rights rankings by Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy worldwide. As shown on their website and in their rankings, Israel has the most freedoms in the region and in terms of its human rights record, has 172 countries ranked below it. He explained how the cause for international law is often used as the rhetoric of choice to justify anti-Israel and anti-Jewish actions. He argued that Israel should not be singled out, and explained how there are many counties who do not comply with or have violated international law, including the United States. Bell also noted that for proponents of BDS and other anti-Israel movements, the ultimatum of “…until Israel complies with international law” is an empty one, as no action will be satisfactory enough for them. Professor Bell told the audience that it is important to know the facts, and concluded his speech by encouraging them to investigate and educate themselves about the issues, as well as to go on the offensive rather than be in the defensive. Dr. Gliszczyńska-Grabias gives an informative presentation on legal responses in Europe. The final speaker of the conference was Dr. Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, a Senior Researcher at the Poznan Human Rights Centre, and Institute of Legal Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Dr. Gliszczyńska-Grabias began her presentation, entitled “Anti-Israel Hatred and Discrimination: Legal Response in Europe,” by discussing the resurgence of anti-Semitism in recent years in Europe. In one incident that occurred on November 1, 2015, the burning of a Jewish effigy during an anti-refugee rally in Poland, much like the burnings of effigies of Jews during pre-WWII Europe, was not met with legal penalties thereafter despite strict laws. She detailed how there are many laws present to fight hatful and discriminatory actions in Europe, and explained, however, that a crucial problem is with their implementation. Career Panel, moderated by Davidoff Solomon, with Joel Siegal, Avi Bell, and Michael Kleinman. After a short coffee break and conference photo session, Professor Davidoff Solomon, Avi bell, Joel Siegal and Michael Kleinmen, a former Brandeis Center Legal Fellow, came together for a Career Panel in which they provided advice for students and insights into their occupation. Each panelist described what lead them to their career path and discussed their experiences. The panelists encouraged participants to pursue what interests them or is meaningful to them. When asked how one can stay involved in the fight against anti-Semitism if they an unrelated profession or if they are away from an active environment, the panelists advised students to remain active in their local communities and to share their knowledge. They encouraged students to become a resource for their community, and stated that law could be used as a vehicle for change. Student Roundtable lead by Jaclyn Newman, Melanie Goldberg , Bethany Hanson. The last event of the conference was a student-led roundtable discussion led by Melanie Goldberg (Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law), Bethany Hanson (Saint Thomas School of Law), and Jaclyn Newman (Cornell Law School). Each of the three panelists is an accomplished board member of their chapter. Goldberg founded an LDB chapter at Cardozo after the Brandeis Center represented her as an undergrad after she was wrongfully ejected from an anti-Israel event. Hanson had organized many of the events of the LDB Saint Thomas chapter, including a weeklong WWII Symposium that had the participation of every student organization. Newman co-spearheaded the Statement in Support of Professor Ami Pedahzur, an Israel Studies professor at the University of Texas at Austin who had been assailed by anti-Israel activists for his effort to host an academic presentation on the Israeli Defense Forces. The panelists began the session by discussing how they became involved in LDB and as well as the work their chapters have accomplished. They then were able to answer questions on how to establish chapters, events and activities, and exchange ideas with their peers. Throughout the conference, students spoke highly of the event and its speakers, they also enjoyed the opportunity to network and exchange ideas with one another. Talia Shifron, a 1L at Chicago Loyola, commented that she “liked learning about international law” and the implementation of European law from this conference. Asher Herzog, a 3L at Harvard, found the speakers to be very helpful and felt that what they had discussed during the conference was “valuable to any law student.” Asher is now returning home to start an LDB chapter at Harvard. Talia Schwartz, founder of LDB’s Berkeley chapter, commented that, “the conference was great. I feel like I learned a lot.” Schwartz went on to say that she feels more informed and has “learned important tools that can be used” to fight back against anti-Semitism.
Knox Hall Houses Columbia University’s Controversial MEALAC Program The Department of Education has started requiring universities that receive federal funding for Middle East Studies centers to report on how their programs are including diverse perspectives and a wide range of views. This is a very important first step to ensure that Middle East Studies programs do not succumb to political one-sidedness. For several years, critics have charged that many of these programs have become highly politicized, monolithically anti-Israel sources of miseducation and bias. The new requirement sends a welcome signal to universities that the Department is now looking more closely at this issue, although there is still more to be done in order to ensure accountability for these programs. Title VI of the Higher Education Act (HEA) contains provisions for funding area studies programs at post-secondary institutions. Title VI requires that the area studies programs that receive funding must represent “diverse perspectives and a wide range of views.” However, in practice these programs often do not actually represent diverse perspectives and a wide range of views, with the troubling result that many Middle East Studies programs end up promoting views which are politically one-sided against Israel. Previously, schools only had to state their intention of fulfilling the diverse perspectives requirement in their initial application and were subject to “no measure of accountability after receiving taxpayer funding” through Title VI, a problem that the Brandeis Center and our colleagues identified in our Joint Statement on the Misuse of Federal Funds under Title VI. The Center had urged the Department to consider adding a diverse perspectives reporting requirement for grantees to ensure greater accountability. LDB has also recommended that the Department monitor institutions that receive Title VI funding in our publication The Morass of Middle East Studies: Title VI of the Higher Education Act and Federally Funded Area Studies. (more…)
Front Cover The Louis D. Brandeis Center (LDB) is pleased to announce that LDB President and General Counsel, Kenneth L. Marcus’ new book, entitled The Definition of Anti-Semitism, is now available for pre-order, published by Oxford University Press. Proceeds from this book will benefit LDB and its campaign to fight campus anti-Semitism. The expected publication date is September 1st and is now available for Pre-Order on Amazon. The task of implementing a working definition of anti-Semitism is extremely important because such a definition, says Kenneth L. Marcus, “can articulate the boundaries of discrimination and harassment towards the Jewish people to ensure their civil rights are upheld, while not intruding upon First Amendment free speech rights.” This book takes a hard look at that issue, leading the charge to protect civil rights. This book is the first to delve into the question of, “What is anti-Semitism?” The absence of a consistent definition of anti-Semitism prevents the resolution of anti-Semitic incidences when they occur on college campuses, and allows for “new anti-Semitism”, as Marcus argues, setting a dangerous precedent for continued abuse and violence on America’s most intellectual grounds. In the book as well, Marcus discusses the history of anti-Semitism, and its past movements and attempts to streamline its definition. Marcus’s book arrives at a time when the regents of the University of California (UC) system are scheduled, also in September, to discuss whether or not the UC school system ought to adopt the aforementioned definition of anti-Semitism. President of UC system, Janet Napolitano, has recently expressed her support for this specific definition, in response to requests from organizations, such as the Louis D. Brandeis Center, to adopt the State Department’s Definition of Anti-Semitism. In his recent op-ed, published in The Jerusalem Post, Marcus reasons that in order to battle anti-Semitism, a trend on the rise according a Brandeis Center-Trinity College joint report, universities must address the definition of anti-Semitism itself. Marcus argues that a good definition of anti-Semitism must not only show us how slippery discourse can be, but it must also increase awareness on where the lines ought to be drawn between anti-Semitic and anti-Israel activity and speech. In addition, he says that this definition does not threaten others’ freedom of speech. He says instead that, “freedoms flourish best when rules are clearly articulated and terms are well-understood.” A good definition also requires, he notes, recognition of the “3Ds,” which include: de-legitimization of, demonization, and applying a double standard to Israel. Below is Table of Contents: Chapter One: Attitude, Behavior, and Ideology Chapter Two: Race and Religion Chapter Three: Time and Eternity Chapter Four: Universality and Particularity Chapter Five: Jewish Identity and the Figural Jew Chapter Six: Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism
Fantastic news for UC Berkley’s Jewish students came this week. On Wednesday, February 25th, the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) unanimously passed a bill in their senate that condemns campus anti-Semitism. Pushed forward by ASUC Senator Ori Herschmann and endorsed by prominent campus leaders like the ASUC President, the Jewish Student Union, and other ASUC Senators, this bill will be integral in fighting anti-Semitism and protecting Jewish students’ rights. The passed bill also incorporates the US State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism and examples of contemporary anti-Semitism as the resolution’s official definition, which they define as: Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. […] Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews (often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion). Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations [..] The Brandeis Center endorses the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism, and we commend UC Berkley for adopting this specific language in their resolution. To supplement the State Department’s definition and examples of anti-Semitism, the bill also describes the important 2004 policy guidance issued by the-Office for Civil Rights chief Kenneth L. Marcus, who is now President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance which extended to protect Jewish students in 2004 on the basis that Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. Additionally, the bill cites anti-Semitic incidents at UC campuses over the last five years, including when the UCLA student government discriminated against a Jewish student and the swastika vandalism that took place at UC Davis. Significantly, the resolution also calls for a meeting with Chancellor Dirks and the Dean of Students to discuss anti-Semitism. The bill also creates an ASUC committee that will actively fight against anti-Semitism as well as an Ad-Hoc committee that plans Holocaust Memorial Day programming. UC Berkley is about to see real change. In light of recent events, including the events at UCLA and UC Davis, the timing of this bill was becoming increasingly more urgent. Our hope is that other universities, especially those that have experienced repeated issues with anti-Semitism, will implement similar legislation that actively fights anti-Semitism.
The Brandeis Center recently issued a public policy White Paper on “The Morass of Middle East Studies: Title VI of the Higher Education Act and Federally Funded Area Studies” to address shortcomings in Title VI of the Higher Education Act. The LDB is particularly concerned about biased, politicized, anti-Israel and anti-American programming at Title VI Centers that violate both the letter and spirit of 2008 congressional reforms. Many Title VI recipients were ideologically polarized institutions notorious for one-sided approaches hostile to the United States, the West, and Israel. Some programs were reportedly so hostile towards Israel that they would not even remotely entertain views that contradicted their unrelentingly anti-Israel perspective. The White Paper is comprehensive in content, which includes a brief history of Title VI from its Cold War origins through post 9/11 reform efforts, the current status of Middle East Studies programs, analysis of failures, and recommendations for more effective Title VI funding. In an analysis of Middle East Studies programs, the Center found that: “No proper complaint-resolution procedure exists to ensure compliance with the HEOA’s key Diverse Perspectives requirement” – highlighting Congress’ Failure to Provide an Enforcement Mechanism. The Department of Education has not indicated what is required by the Diverse Perspectives requirement or how it can best be implemented. “The Department [of Education] does not ensure compliance with this requirement through well-established processes that it uses to monitor grantees actions under other programs.” The Department’s failure to clarify the Diverse Perspectives requirement has meant that universities applying for Title VI funding do not know what must be done to achieve “diverse perspectives,” and government officials do not know what to look for in reviewing applications. To address this, the White Paper offers recommendations to Congress, the Department of Education, and the universities, on how best to reform Title VI funding. (more…)
Today a coalition of national organizations, including the Louis D. Brandeis Center, issued the following statement concerning the issue of biased and highly politicized Middle East Studies programs funded under HEA Title VI. The statement addresses the history, current problems, and proposed solutions ameliorate the bias programs of Title VI recipients. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the misuse of federal funds under Title VI of the Higher Education Act (“HEA”). Despite congressional reforms adopted during the 2008 reauthorization of the HEA, many recipients of federal aid under Title VI continue to use taxpayer funds to support biased, politicized, and imbalanced programs of Middle East Studies. These programs fail to satisfy Title VI’s intended purpose, flout congressional intent, and thwart American national security and foreign policy interests. We support efforts to effectuate the intention underlying the 2008 congressional reforms. In particular, we support accountability and transparency measures to implement the 2008 congressional action. Background Enacted by Congress to strengthen the nation’s security by training future national security professionals and educating the public on international affairs, Title VI provides federal funds to 129 international studies and foreign language centers at universities nationwide. Such centers are obligated by statute to conduct “public outreach” programs for K-12 teachers, educators, and the general public in return for Title VI funds. Today these outreach programs, which have no congressional oversight, often disseminate anti-American and anti-Israel falsehoods. In 2006, Congress mandated a review of Title VI-funded programs by the National Research Council. Their report, issued in 2007, found that Title VI programs had become ineffective in achieving their original goals, and greater oversight by the Department of Education was needed. The programs used taxpayer funding to disseminate biased one-sided views that criticized American foreign policy and national security. During the 2008 reauthorization of the HEA, Congress sought to address these concerns. The statute was amended, adding that “grants should be made . . . on the condition that” descriptions, assurances, or explanations are provided on how the program “will reflect diverse perspective and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs.” Current Problems The evidence shows that many centers funded under Title VI still do not serve the basic objectives of the program, namely, to advance American national security and international relations interests. They too often exclude scholars with diverse perspectives while stifling discourse on critical issues. The biased learning environment that results suppresses the academic freedom of students and faculty with different views. At some institutions, students are afraid to disagree with their professors. Particularly troubling is that these government-funded centers also disseminate one-sided views to an audience far wider than on our college campuses. The centers conduct “public outreach” programs as a condition of receiving Title VI funds and present their biased and often inaccurate views to K-12 teachers, educators, and the general public. Teachers, educators, and members of the public are thus being misled by programs that promote a particular political agenda, rather than a balanced and accurate perspective. Rather than serve American national security and foreign policy interests, these programs do the opposite. These problems have persisted despite the 2008 congressional reforms that were intended to curb them. There are more than just a few isolated examples of the problem. In 2014, the AMCHA Initiative issued a report chronicling the public outreach activities of UCLA’s Center for Near East Studies (CNES), funded in part by Title VI, from 2010 to 2013. Among its findings: Of 149 public events sponsored in full or in part by CNES related to fourteen Middle Eastern countries, more than one-quarter of the events (40, or 27 percent) focused on Israel. Of 49 public events relating to significant Middle East political conflicts, 30, or 61 percent of the events focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of 28 Israel-related public events, 93 percent exhibited bias against Israel. There are many examples of similar bias at other Title VI recipients: Speaking at a 2011 event on “The Arabs and the Holocaust” at UC-Berkeley, Gilbert Achcar of the University of London began his lecture by stating, “Don’t expect me to take a pro-Israel view. I’m an Arab.” He characterized terrorist acts as “counter-violence” that “pales in scale” to actions by Israel, and asserted that “Holocaust denial is a form of protest.” At the University of Texas, Austin, Professor Samer Ali called Israel a “racist” state, implied parallels to Nazi behavior by stating that no group should claim superiority over another “like Zionists do,” and claimed to be the subject of a “pro-Zionist fatwa.” The UNC-Chapel Hill and Duke University Consortium for Middle East studies has held events seeking to delegitimize Israel by characterizing it as an “oppressive state” that violates countless human rights, claiming that Israel practices South African-style apartheid, and comparing the Palestinians to the Native Americans in the United States. The University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, Tufts, Brown, UNC-Chapel Hill, and Columbia hosted public screenings of the film “The Great Book Robbery,” which claims that the modern state of Israel at its founding in 1948 victimized Palestinians by stealing both their homes and, through their books, Palestinian culture. No alternative views were offered. As these examples illustrate, Middle East centers funded under Title VI have failed to comply with federal law, by using taxpayer dollars to present biased, anti-American, anti-Israel views in their outreach programs. A proposed solution Systems are needed to ensure accountability and transparency to effectuate the 2008 congressional reforms. We recommend the following two steps as a means of dealing with the problem that Title VI programs have no measure of accountability after receiving taxpayer funding: Require recipients of Title VI funds to establish grievance procedures to address complaints that programs are not reflecting diverse perspectives and a wide range of views. Require the U.S. Department of Education to establish a formal complaint-resolution process similar to that in use to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (This would not have a material effect on the Department’s budget given the existence of an investigative and enforcement arm already available to address noncompliance with other statutes.) Arguably, Title VI programs no longer serve a legitimate purpose because they have been disserved by the centers. In 2011, Congress reduced Title VI funding nationwide by 40 percent, from $34 million to $18 million. Unless effective and necessary reforms can be enacted, Congress may have to consider reducing or eliminating Title VI funding from Middle East studies centers. Respectfully submitted, ACCURACY IN ACADEMIA AMCHA INITIATIVE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JEWISH LAWYERS AND JURISTS ENDOWMENT FOR MIDDLE EAST TRUTH THE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER LAW MIDDLE EAST FORUM SCHOLARS FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA
Mike Gonzalez LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus is pleased to announce the appearance of foreign policy analyst Mike Gonzalez as new guest blogger on the Brandeis Center Blog for a two-week period beginning September 15. Mr. Gonzalez’s appearance underscores the immediate need to address Title VI funding to universities under the Higher Education Act. Mr. Gonzalez’ appearance comes as the Brandeis Center prepares to announce release important new work on abuse of Title VI of the Higher Education Act. The Center will soon release a public policy White Paper on “The Morass of Middle East Studies: Title VI of the Higher Education Act and Federally Funded Area Studies.” The Center is particularly concerned about biased, policized, anti-Israel and anti-American programming at Title VI Centers that violate both the letter and spirit of 2008 congressional reforms. In this light, the Center welcomes the expertise that Gonzalez brings to the subject. “Mike Gonzalez is an astute analyst of the Higher Education Act and has just written a valuable analysis of Title VI that I think our readers should be aware of. We look forward to his insights, and we are proud to welcome him to our blog” commented LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus. Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Davis Institute for International Studies – The Heritage Foundation’s arm for research and analysis on foreign policy, international relations, global economics, and national security – has a vast array of experience as an international journalist, having reported from Europe, Asia and Latin America. He served as speechwriter for Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox during the Bush administration before moving to the State Department’s European Bureau, where he wrote speeches and Op-Eds. Gonzalez, who joined The Heritage Foundation as Vice President of Communications in March 2009, became a senior research fellow in June, 2014. Gonzalez has published an important recent policy paper, “America Is Ill-Served by Its Government-Funded Area Studies and Foreign Policy Programs.” In this paper, Gonzalez calls for “systematic solutions.” One “modest but easy step,” he argues, “is to cut off funding for Title VI of the Higher Education Act, which subsidizes area studies centers at universities throughout the country.” Mr. Gonzalez argues that these programs “have failed in their mandated task of preparing foreign language and regional experts to meet the national defense needs of the United States.” His book, “A Race for the Future, How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans” was published Sept. 2 by Crown Forum.
University of California at Davis (source: Wikimedia Commons) When three Jewish students tried to speak at a November 2012 protest against Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense on the University of California, Davis campus, they were silenced with shouts of “Leave our space!” “Shame on you!” and “Long live the intifada!” The harassment only got worse. The protesters then started chanting “F**k Israel” and gave the Jewish students a choice – join the chant, or be removed from the building. When they refused to leave, the three students were forcibly backed against a wall of windows while the protestors pounded their fists in the air, and made threatening physical gestures. The school officials nearby did nothing to try and control the situation. There was a clear pattern of troubling behavior – these bitter clashes took place shortly after an unrelated outdoor demonstration held on campus turned into a rally against Israel. UC Davis had quickly become a hostile environment for Jewish students. In addition to fostering a malicious campus culture, by allowing this threatening campus life to continue, the school threatened its federal funding: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the use of federal funding for public programs – including public universities – found to discriminate based on race, color or natural origin. (more…)
Civil Rights Attorney, Joel H. Siegal, a member of the Louis D. Brandeis Center’s Legal Advisory Board, reports a major Title Six victory brought on behalf of a 14 year old African-American student against St. Charles Borromeo School, a private elementary school operated by the Archdiocese of San Francisco. In the case, Mugisha M. v. St. Charles Borromeo School and the Archdiocese of San Francisco (San Francisco Superior CGC-11-516-819), Joel H. Siegal and his law partner Richard L. Richardson who represented the student, presented facts that between the third and sixth grade, Mugisha was subjected to vile and offensive racial bullying, name calling, and taunting by several classmates. The school is located in the Mission District of San Francisco, and Mugisha was just one of three black students at the school. The evidence established that during the three years, Mugisha’s mother made numerous complaints to the school administrators and officials, yet no effective plan to have the racial bullying cease was ever put into play. The bullying and taunting amplified to the place in the sixth grade, when several students participated in cutting a part of Mugisha’s dreadlocks, and then throwing him in a recycling bin. (more…)