Published in Times of Israel on 3/14/24; Story by Tal Schneider The Gulf kingdom has lavished billions on US higher education as it seeks soft power, but some allege the money may also be fueling anti-Israel and anti-Jewish trends at schools One will not find many Qatari flags fluttering in College Station, the town that Texas A&M University calls home. The tiny Middle Eastern state does not have its name on any of the buildings across the school’s sprawling campus, nor are those of Qatar’s ruling sheikhs engraved in Legacy Hall at the Jon L. Hagler Center, where the university’s major supporters are recognized. According to public documents, though, the land-grant university is awash in Qatari money. Between 2015 and 2023, $404 million worth of Doha’s cash made its way into school coffers, according to a federal register. Data recently obtained by a watchdog through the courts appear to show that the school actually received tens of millions more. The Aggies are hardly alone. According to a 2022 study, Qatar contributed $4.7 billion to dozens of academic institutions across the United States between 2001 and 2021. Some of the amounts are classified as “gifts” while others are labeled as “restricted agreements.” In recent months, as institutions of higher education across the US have been rocked by anti-Israel protests and allegations of inaction or apathy in the face of antisemitic rhetoric or worse, Qatar’s outlays have come under increased scrutiny over the role they may play in influencing attitudes toward the Jewish state in academia. “Qatar’s goal is not to promote antisemitic or pro-Palestinian messages, I believe, but antisemitism and pro-Palestinian sentiments are byproducts of policies convenient for them,” said Ariel Admoni, a PhD student at Bar Ilan University who specializes in foreign and domestic relations of Qatar and the Arabian Gulf. The 2022 study, conducted by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), argues that as funding from Middle Eastern countries increases – and becomes less transparent to the public – certain campuses experience campaigns to silence academics, an erosion of democratic values, and a lack of response to attacks on students’ freedom of expression. Using statistical analysis, the authors posited a correlation between schools that receive foreign funding and antisemitic or anti-Israel rhetoric, as well as allegations of antisemitic activity. According to the research, universities receiving the largest sums from Qatar have shown a willingness to align with anti-democratic norms fostered by repressive Middle Eastern petrostates, such as intolerance of certain types of speech. Oftentimes, these standards dovetail with movements in academia tamping down on freedom of expression in the name of creating a safe space for multicultural inclusion. However, critics say that the commitment to inclusion stops where support for Zionism or the Jewish community begins, with the result being an atmosphere on many of the top campuses in the US where Jews and Israel supporters feel unwelcome and unsafe. Academic investments Universities are supposed to report foreign investments, and the data is made public by the US Department of Education, which has a database online. Records published by the department show the breadth and depth of Qatari investments in US higher education. Among other schools, Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh received $301 million from Qatar between 2020 and 2023. The Virginia Commonwealth University received $125 million between 2019 and 2023, and Georgetown University received $210 million between 2015 and 2023, according to the federal register. Harvard, which has been embroiled in an antisemitism scandal that led to its president’s resignation, has taken over $8 million from Qatar since 2020. At the top of the list is Cornell, which has received a whopping $1.5 billion from Qatar since 2015. Nearly every country appears on the Department of Education database, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. That includes Israel, though the amounts, which are rarely more than a few hundred thousand dollars, are almost always tied to research agreements in life sciences and rarely come from the government itself. Other countries give heftier sums, which have come with their own questions. In 2021 Saudi Arabia provided $74 million to the University of Idaho and a year later gave $47 million to Chapman University. Both amounts were reported as tuition fees or guarantees for Saudi nationals. Germany is another country that has thrown money at schools, such as the $1.2 billion it gave to the University of Pennsylvania in 2018 alone. In 2021, US President Joe Biden, who situated a namesake think tank at Penn and was paid nearly $1 million by the school in 2018 and 2019, named its president as ambassador to Germany. Public conversations in the past had focused on Chinese money and influence flowing into US universities, which also reach astronomical amounts, such as contracts worth over $140 million paid to New York University between 2020 and 2023. Qatari connections go back decades According to Admoni, Qatar’s links to American academia date back to the 1970s and 1980s. “The Qataris utilize the academic institution as an unofficial arm of the government, providing a platform where they can convey messages not officially attributed to them,” he said. Much of the money comes from the Qatar Foundation, which was set up to advance education and Arab culture within Qatar and to “promote and engage in dialogue internationally to address and influence global topics,” according to a fact sheet. The fund’s landmark project is Education City in Doha, which hosts satellite campuses of six American universities, including Texas A&M, Cornell and Georgetown. The foundation is headed by Moza Bint Nasser, mother of the Qatari emir, who has been asked repeatedly to use her high profile to intercede on behalf of hostages being held in Gaza, including by Sara Netanyahu. Online and in public appearances, though, Bint Nasser has been critical of Israel’s war against Hamas and silent on the hostages. “If the government wants to communicate a message, they organize an academic conference, set up a forum with symposiums in the capital of Qatar, and within it, statements may be made, such as expressing dissatisfaction towards the United States by the speakers,” Admoni said. “The academic framework allows them to articulate things indirectly. In other words, Qatar pursues its own agenda, and for Qatar, an academic institution is a legitimate tool to achieve their foreign policy goals.” Universities justify their ongoing collaboration with Qatar and other schools by citing the need for international dialogue, mutual cultural enrichment, and the enhancement of academic research through social diversity. Academics in the United States argue that bringing the spirit of American academia to places like Doha will strengthen liberal values and academic freedom in the face of dictatorial societies, constituting a form of soft power diplomacy. Kenneth Marcus, who leads the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which provides legal aid to students experiencing antisemitism on campus, said the cross-cultural exchanges can often bring students “indoctrinated with anti-Jewish propaganda” to campus, or send American students to places where they absorb antisemitic attitudes. “They may come in peace, but also in many cases, bring with them cultural attitudes towards Israel and Jewish communities in a way that is harmful in the United States,” he said of foreign students. “While we should welcome all people into our country, we should be very concerned about those foreign students who are bringing anti-Jewish, and in some cases anti-American attitudes.” “US students are increasingly studying on Qatari and other Gulf State campuses, which don’t have even remotely the academic freedom standards that we have in the United States,” he added. “Where there is reportedly a very high level of indoctrination, so that American students come back from foreign campuses having been propagandized and indoctrinated for a semester or a year, this then becomes a significant aspect of the climate at their home institutions.” Rising concerns On February 8, Texas A&M’s Board of Regents voted to close its Qatar campus, citing “heightened instability in the Middle East,” an oblique reference to Israel’s war with Hamas. Many, however, believe the move was tied to questions that have emerged over its ties to Qatar, particularly concerns voiced by conservatives that nuclear secrets could be leaked via the partnership. “When Gulf states invest in American universities, they might have a variety of motivations, including not only influencing the United States, but also building up their own educated citizenry. There are undoubtedly, though, a host of ramifications of these partnerships,” said Marcus, who served as assistant secretary for civil rights at the US Department of Education from 2018 to 2020. He noted that over the last 20 years, anti-Israel attitudes in academia had expanded, having once been largely isolated to Middle Eastern studies programs but now being present in a wide range of fields of study. “Even mental health programs, psychology programs, and medical schools are now badly infected with anti-Zionism,” he said. As campuses have become battlegrounds over Israeli and Palestinian narratives in the wake of the October 7 massacre of 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas terrorists, many have found it hard to ignore Qatar’s university funding and what that funding could buy. Though presenting itself as a fair mediator in indirect talks between Israel and Hamas, including over terms for the release of hostages abducted by Hamas on October 7 and still held in Gaza, Qatar has long hosted Hamas’s leadership and has been harshly critical of Israel. In a statement released as Hamas terrorists were carrying out atrocities across southern Israel, Doha declared Israel “solely responsible for the ongoing escalation” and justified the terror onslaught. “The Qataris excel at leveraging the Palestinian issue to draw attention to what suits them,” Admoni said. “In Western countries, particularly within educated circles, the pro-Palestinian struggle is perceived as a ‘convenient’ cause. Consequently, from the Qatari perspective, this portrayal positions them favorably on what they consider to be the right side of public opinion, especially among the youth.” According to Marcus, the draw of Qatari money also means school administrators may be less willing to call out antisemitism on campus. “It’s not at all surprising when US administrators are reluctant to impose the same discipline on foreign students when they’re getting foreign money because there is a range of pressures on them to avoid doing the right thing,״ he said. Doha’s ‘pragmatism’ As shown by the fact that it hosts both a major American military base and a Taliban embassy, Doha excels at maintaining alliances while navigating shifting and often discordant interests. Admoni noted that when Qatar was accused of funding the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda in 2017, Doha launched a charm offensive aimed at keeping Washington in its court, including cozying up to Jewish leaders. “They are very pragmatic and cynical politicians, and if they have a global goal like appearing as those who solve the Palestinian issue, they will do whatever it takes for that,” he said. “The Qataris aim to be tone-setters, active participants in the discourse, exerting influence wherever they can impact and where decision-makers gather,” Admoni added. “This involves investing in global sports, culture, politics, and academia to establish ‘soft power’ influence. It’s a form of soft diplomacy, ensuring that they cannot be ignored.” Editor’s note: A previous version of this story misidentified the Virginia university which received money from Qatar. We regret the error.
On a call Thursday evening, September 14, with hundreds of rabbis, White House Domestic Policy Advisor Neera Tanden commented on the Brandeis Center’s milestone Resolution Agreement with the University of Vermont, the first time the Biden administration applied Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to anti-Zionist discrimination. Tanden is the administration official responsible for overseeing the implementation of the newly-released U.S. National Strategy to Counter antisemitism, and she delivered public remarks on the plan for the first time: “Obviously, there’s been a rising concern on campus on anti-Semitism, and the strategy really propels action on the part of the part of the [Department of Education] and the Office of Civil Rights to really be aggressive in addressing antisemitism as we look at and investigate other issues of discrimination,” said Tanden, who pointed to the settlement the Department of Education reached with the University of Vermont — based on a Brandeis Center legal complaint — in April that said the university had not adequately responded to anti-Semitism on its campus.
This February 17-18, the Louis D. Brandeis Center hosted its sixth annual National Law Student Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. The conference brought together law student leaders from LDB chapters across the country, and educated the students on topics including international law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict; how to use legal tools to combat anti-Semitism and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel; how anti-Zionism is an attack on Jewish identity; and why anti-BDS legislation is constitutional. Additionally, the students were able to network with peers, attorneys, and legal scholars. The LDB law student chapter initiative, launched in 2014, includes 20 chapters nationwide. LDB chapters fill an important gap in American legal education, offering programming that connects students’ legal training to pressing Jewish civil rights issues. The annual conference is an opportunity to bring students together from across the country and educate them not only on pressing issues affecting the Jewish community today, but also on the legal tools available to combat anti-Semitism. The law students, representing 19 schools including Emory, UCLA, Fordham, Harvard, George Washington University, UVA, Northeastern, and University of Chicago, were given the opportunity to engage with each other in a continuous dialogue about the issues facing them as aspiring lawyers and proponents of civil rights for the Jewish people. The lectures, panels, and roundtable discussions featured several prominent figures in academia, government, and the legal profession. The conference was also attended by the Brandeis Center’s pilot group of JIGSAW fellows, who shared their experiences as the first cohort of LDB’s new legal initiative. LDB President Alyza D. Lewin LDB President Alyza D. Lewin, opened the conference by focusing on the need for a new take in the fight against anti-Semitism on college campuses. Lewin provided a new, unique approach and articulated how anti-Zionism is an attack on Jewish identity. She noted, “In order to effectively utilize legal tools that are designed to address discrimination, we must accurately describe the attack on Jewish identity that is taking place today on university campuses. Zionism is demonized, and as a result, pro-Israel students cannot express a key component of their identity.” Following Lewin’s opening remarks, Professor Abraham Bell took the stage. Bell, of San Diego State University and Bar Ilan University, who is an expert in international law, spoke on “The Laws of Armed Conflict,” focusing on Israel and the application of international humanitarian law to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nathan Lewin Famed attorney Nathan Lewin gave the keynote dinner address. Lewin, whose career has spanned over five decades, spoke about his experiences litigating in the Supreme Court on behalf of members of the United States armed forces to wear yarmulkes, and battling for the right to have Chanukah menorahs in public parks Lewin’s talk was titled “Who Fights for the Jews in Supreme Court Cases?” He encouraged the new generation of lawyers to challenge bias and bigotry wherever it arises. Mayor Gabriel Groisman Mayor Gabriel Groisman of Bal Harbour, Florida spoke on, “Having the Courage to Stand up Against Anti-Semitism as a Lawyer and an Elected Official: My Story and Yours.” Mayor Groisman stressed the importance of bravery and strength in the face of bigotry. Groisman’s rousing story chronicled his journey from growing up as the son of Latin Jewish immigrants in Florida, to beginning his legal career, and finally how he ended up in the world of politics. Groisman’s municipality, Bal Harbour, drafted the first city ordinance banning a city from engaging in business with organizations or entities which boycott Israel. Groisman was also instrumental in the Miami-Dade police district adopting the nation’s first city-level uniform definition of anti-Semitism for use in the investigation of hate crimes. Professor Eugene Kontorovich The second day of the conference began with Professor Eugene Kontorovich, of George Mason’s Scalia Law School, discussing “International Law and Disputing Occupation.” Professor Kontorovich described how international borders are ordinarily defined under principles of international law, and explained that by definition Israel’s conduct does not constitute a “belligerent occupation.” Professor Kontorovich noted that Israel’s opponents employ terminology that purposefully misleads the uninformed. Kontorovich also discussed state-level anti-BDS legislation, and how the BDS movement utilizes poor understandings of international law to weaponize the field against Israel and pro-Israel students. Professor Kontorovich’s talk was followed by LDB Director of Legal Initiatives Aviva Vogelstein discussing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as other laws that help protect Jewish students on campus from anti-Semitic conduct. The discussion included a breakout session which was used to demonstrate the difficult legal nature that surrounds enforcing federal civil rights protections for Jewish students on campus. Mark Rotenberg The Vice President of Israel Engagement of Hillel International, Mark Rotenberg, then spoke about “BDS and Academic Freedom,” chronicling Hillel’s efforts to educate campus administrators, faculty, and students against the dangers of the boycott movement. Rotenberg described incidents, like the recent attempts by professors to deny recommendations to students who intended to visit Israel, as serious issues in academia that warranted stronger responses from university administrations. Rotenberg also detailed for the law students the history of the principle of “academic freedom” and advised them on how the principle can best be utilized to address anti-Semitism on campus. Attendees of the 2019 conference. Following the end of Rotenberg’s talk on BDS, the law students were treated to a discussion-panel with students who had participated in LDB’s inaugural JIGSAW fellowship program. The four JIGSAW fellows in attendance detailed what they viewed as a comprehensive, objective, and balanced experience which provided them with a new set of tools they could use to in order to help combat anti-Israel sentiment on campus. These tools were gained on their training trip to Israel this past December, in partnership with Hasbara Fellowships. The JIGSAW program provided a valuable opportunity, according to the students, to gain new perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as new legal and rhetorical tools. The students answered questions on the various aspects of the program, all the while highlighting how valuable they found the experience. LDB President Alyza D. Lewin closed the conference by stressing the importance of using legal tools to combat anti-Semitism and encouraging the law students to remain engaged in this important area of law and involved with the Brandeis Center.
Reposted with permission from the author, from VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY, Response to Clark Hall By Baruch Nutovic (President of the LDB Law Student Chapter at the University of Virginia School of Law; UVA Law ’19) Response to Clark Hall When I was a freshman at University of California Berkeley (UC Berkeley), I came back to my dormitory one night to discover a swastika on my door. That was just the start. Over my years as an undergraduate, I routinely found swastikas and anti-Semitic scribbling, like the “kill Jews” I found in the library bathroom. I found Swastikas painted around town as well, and the city seemed in no hurry to remove them. The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley’s student newspaper, published anti-Semitic op-eds and cartoons on multiple occasions. A Jewish student was rammed in the back with a shopping cart during an anti-Israel event and subsequently had to seek a restraining order. As bills to boycott the Middle East’s only democracy, Israel, were debated by UC Berkeley’s student government, I heard Jews called Christ-killers and bloodthirsty child-killers. Old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jewish domination of the media, finance, government, etc. were aired over and over again. My experience is common for Jewish students in the University of California (UC) system. In recent years, swastika incidents have become commonplace, and at UC Davis, swastikas were even painted on the Jewish fraternity house. At UC San Diego, at a pro-Israel event, a student declared support for gathering all Jews in Israel, that they might be killed more easily. At UC Los Angeles, a Jewish applicant for the Student Council’s Judicial Board was asked whether being Jewish would get in the way of her doing her job. At UC Irvine, an anti-Israel mob harassed and chased a female Jewish student trying to enter an Israeli film event. The movement of hate against the Jewish state often predictably results in hate crimes, intimidation, and violence directed at Jewish students. I bring all this up for a reason. On February 22, the Brody Jewish Center at the University of Virginia (UVa) hosted an event in Clark Hall called “Building Bridges.” A panel of Israeli Defense Force reservists were to share their personal stories and answer questions from students. The objective was to humanize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, offer students a chance to learn about Israeli society, and create a dialogue about peacemaking. During the event, a group of students and non-students stormed in, yelling anti-Israel slogans and trying to intimidate Jewish students. The militants ignored entreaties to be part of the event and ask tough questions of the panelists. They continued harassing attendees until campus police were called, and then they finally dispersed. It is disturbing to see the anti-Israel hate movement’s campaign of violence and intimidation against Jewish students, which has become an established part of campus life at the University of California and other major universities, being brought to UVa. It was still more disturbing to see the undergraduate Minority Rights Coalition deny the Jewish Leadership Council membership, on the grounds that one of the council’s five organizations was a pro-Israel group. Thankfully, this has not been an issue at UVa Law. One of the main strategies of the anti-Israel hate movement is to try to drive a wedge between Jews and other minorities, suggesting that Jews are not a minority group in an effort to isolate Jews. The facts say otherwise. According to FBI statistics for 2016, the last year for which data is available, Jews were subject to more hate crimes per capita than any other minority group. And according to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2017 anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. surged nearly 60 percent, the largest single-year increase on record. It is no accident that when the white supremacists came to Charlottesville to intimidate African-Americans and other minorities, one of their chants was “Jews will not replace us.” Of course, when a culture of hate against one group is tolerated, the result tends to be the targeting of other groups as well. It was not a coincidence that while I was at UC Berkeley, there were numerous racist incidents targeting other minorities, including a fraternity hanging a noose outside their window for Halloween. And I’ll never forget my horror when I sat down at a desk in the UC Berkeley library to find “kill N*****s” written on it. Hate crime statistics bear out the connections between different forms of hate on the national level too. In 2016, 50.2 percent of racially-motivated hate crimes targeted African-Americans, and 54.2 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes targeted Jews. These are strikingly similar numbers. Benjamin Franklin once wrote “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” In the 1960s, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Martin Luther King marched arm in arm at Selma, with Rabbi Heschel calling on Jews to “hearken” to Dr. King’s call for equality, and Dr. King denouncing anti-Zionism as a reincarnation of anti-Semitism. We need to rekindle the spirit of those times, and remember that all of us share a commitment to equality. In the coming weeks, the UVa chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights and allied organizations will be partnering for two events. On March 19, veteran civil rights litigator Joel Siegel will speak about how Title VI and Title IX claims can be used to address race and sex discrimination in educational institutions. On April 4, civil rights scholar Alexander Tsesis of Loyola Law and Dean Kendrick will discuss campus hate speech and the First Amendment. We hope both events will spark a meaningful conversation about discrimination in educational institutions.
This February 25-26, the Louis D. Brandeis Center hosted its fifth annual National Law Student Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C. The conference brought together law student leaders from LDB’s law student chapters across the country, and educated these students on topics including civil rights law; international law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict; how to use legal tools to combat anti-Semitism and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel; and the constitutionality of anti-BDS legislation, among other topics. Additionally, the students were presented with networking opportunities amongst their peers, attorneys, and legal scholars. The LDB law student chapter initiative, launched in 2014, includes 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. The annual conference is an opportunity to bring students together from all over the country, and educate them on pressing issues affecting the Jewish community today. The law students, representing 13 schools including Emory, UCLA, Cornell, Georgetown, George Washington University, UVA and CUNY, were given the opportunity to engage with each other in a continuous dialogue about the issues facing them as aspiring lawyers and proponents of civil rights for the Jewish people, all facilitated within 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 were also given an opportunity to enhance their knowledge and participate in discussions with multiple legal experts, and scholars of note. After exposure to anti-Semitic incidents on campus, University of St. Thomas law student Stephanie Edmonson stated: “I wanted to understand how and why these incidents occurred the way they did, and what I could do to help address them on my campus. The Louis D. Brandeis Center Conference helped provide the answers to those questions.” 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. LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus and Chief Operating Officer & Director of Policy Alyza Lewin gave opening remarks, focusing on the importance of the continuing fight against anti-Semitism on college campuses. Marcus highlighted the increase in older forms of anti-Semitism – demonstrated in the renewed visibility of white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideologies, the continuing danger of the BDS movement, and the spread of anti-Semitism into academic associations. Marcus stated that what this fight needs is a unique combination: individuals with a background in legal training who can work as lawyers while being concerned with civil rights and human rights issues. Marcus highlighted the importance of the law student chapters, their role in responding to local incidents, and their unique ability to network with other chapters to create a unified front against campus anti-Semitism. Lewin discussed the importance of what the students were going to learn over the course of the conference, and the relevance of each session. The speakers included Professor Abraham Bell, of San Diego State University and Bar Ilan University, who specializes in the areas of property, copyright, international law, and economic analysis of law. Bell’s talk, entitled “International Law & The Arab-Israeli Conflict,” focused on Israel and international human rights law. Bell’s talk was a witty, informative, discussion that provided legal and rhetorical strategies for combating anti-Israel canards, while simultaneously disavowing libels frequently levied against the one Jewish state. Bell’s talk ranged from discussions of the legal status of settlements, to the question of what exactly international law is. Bell persuasively argued the fact that Israel is placed at the center of bigotry, and international law is used as a rhetorical tool to mask the anti-Semitic intent of those who do put it there. At the conference dinner, Representative Alan D. Clemmons gave an impassioned speech, discussing his instrumental role in the passage of South Carolina’s 2015 anti-BDS law, what was then the first of its kind. Representative Alan D. Clemmons is a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and a leader in the fight against anti-Semitism and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel. In 2016, Representative Clemmons introduced H.3643, South Carolina’s Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which, if passed, will continue to demonstrate South Carolina’s leading role in the fight against anti-Semitism. Representative Clemmons spoke of the need for greater clarity and truth in the fight against anti-Semitism, and of the need to unlearn the biases and language associated with the anti-BDS movement. Praising the law students for their choice to fight against bigotry, Representative Clemmons encouraged them to continue on the path they had embarked upon. Hon. Irwin Cotler delivered the keynote dinner address. Cotler, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, longtime Parliamentarian, and recent Founder and International Chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, spoke about the resurgence of anti-Semitism, and what we can do to combat its spread. Cotler differentiated between what he sees as the five different forms of anti-Semitism: genocidal anti-Semitism, demonological anti-Semitism, political anti-Semitism, anti-Jewish terror underpinned by anti-Zionism, and the rebranding of anti-Semitism as supposedly universal values. Cotler spoke of positive legislation being used to fight against anti-Semitism, such as the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism and the potential widespread adoption of the U.S. State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism within the United States. Cotler pointed to the need for a United States envoy to monitor anti-Semitism and echoed Representative Clemmons call for a new approach to the language surrounding anti-Semitism, pointing to the ability for pro-Jewish advocates to “leverage the language of intersectionality.” The second day of the conference began with LDB Director of Legal Initiatives Aviva Vogelstein and Civil Rights Legal Fellow Roee Talmor discussing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws that can help protect Jewish students and all students on campus. The discussion included a breakout session which helped to demonstrate the difficult legal nature that surrounds anti-Semitism as long as no uniform, enforceable, definition of anti-Semitism exists for use on campuses. Emory Professor Mark Goldfeder further discussed the fallacy of employing international law as a tool against Israel and the right to Jewish self-determination. Mark Goldfeder is senior lecturer at Emory University School of Law, Spruill Family Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, and director of the Restoring Religious Freedom Project. He is also editor of the Cambridge University Press Series on Law and Judaism, and has served as an adviser to the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations. Goldfeder pointed towards the precise nature of legal language and how that affected the appeals to legal statutes. Goldfeder illustrated this by providing the example of the supposedly “disproportionate” nature of Israeli military actions, when the proper (and equally inapplicable) term is “asymmetrical.” Goldfeder further debunked claims of anti-BDS laws infringing upon first amendment guarantees of free speech, using legal precedent and precise readings of the anti-BDS laws, including that government speech is not subject to first amendment arguments in this form. LDB’s Alyza Lewin spoke on “The Status of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and the Zivotofsky Case.” Lewin, who, along with her father, Nathan Lewin, of the law firm of Lewin & Lewin, argued the noted Zivotofsky case (also known as “The Jerusalem Passport Case”) in front of the United States Supreme Court. The case sought to allow individuals born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their birth country, rather than being forced to just list Jerusalem. Lewin tied her talk to the recent announcement by the Trump administration that the Israeli embassy would be moved to Jerusalem this coming May. The move has renewed discussion revolving around the passport case, and has illustrated the continued importance of pursuing legal means to answer questions of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias. The last event of the conference consisted of a panel of law students from three different law schools discussing their roles as the heads of their respective Brandeis Center legal chapters. The students, Baruch Nutovic of UVA, Jordan Weber of Emory, and Benjamin Wigley of Cornell, answered questions from moderator Aviva Vogelstein, and offered unique advice and solutions to problems faced on US campuses. Fielding questions from students and Vogelstein, the three chapter leaders discussed the leadership qualities that they utilized to organize events, encourage growth of their chapters, and address anti-Semitism and other forms of bias when such hate rears its ugly head on their campuses. LDB President Kenneth Marcus gave closing remarks, highlighting the importance of the work the law students in attendance were doing. Marcus discussed further means of advancing in their goals, as well informing the law students about future opportunities to continue working with the Brandeis Center. After the closing of the conference, law student Nicollete Taber of Loyola University Chicago stated that “I have experienced anti-Semitism on campus, and that situation did not resolve itself in any satisfactory manner. The Louis D. Brandeis Center has provided me with the tools I need to help combat it personally, as well as to advise others when they face anti-Semitism of their own. Mark Landauer, of the University of St. Thomas Law School, added that the “The conference provides a unique opportunity to see a variety of different perspectives due to the diverse nature of the students who attend. We use our diverse backgrounds to bring different viewpoints in our examination of this difficult topic.” Zev Rosenberg of Emory Law School, who has attended the conference for three years in a row, explained that “I had learned a lot during the previous years I had attended, and was always thrilled by the fact that each year the conference felt so different. The conference serves as a gateway for law students to learn more about the Louis D. Brandeis Center, I highly recommend attending it.”
Reposted from VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY, September 13, 2017, Toward Resilience in the Face of Hate By Baruch Nutovic (President of the LDB Law Student Chapter at the University of Virginia School of Law; UVA Law ’19) —- At first, my parents did not know what to make of the dreams. Then, it dawned on them: my grandmother’s stories. She had been deported to Auschwitz, the Nazis’ largest concentration camp, with her family in the spring of 1944. After days in a cramped cattle car without food or water, they arrived. One of her brothers was shot in front of her. Her younger brother, after whom my brother is named, was sent with her parents to the gas chambers. I grew up hearing her stories. I can only imagine what she’d say if she were alive to hear of white supremacists marching by the thousands through the streets where I live. That my wife and I were going downtown to join the counter-protests was never in question. It was a surreal scene. White supremacists in militia outfits with military gear. David Duke, former head of the KKK, spewing hate. People wearing shirts quoting Hitler, calling for the subjugation of black people. Fights breaking out in the streets between the white supremacists and Antifa. It felt like we had been transported back in time, as though we were in the old Jim Crow South or 1930s Germany. Charlottesville was not the Charlottesville we know and love on that weekend. But it is precisely that which gives me solace. That weekend was the antithesis of what Charlottesville is about. We believe in equality for people of every race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation. We are tolerant of political differences and stand for reasoned debate in a spirit of goodwill. Charlottesville’s great coming-together after the Unite the Right rally, the candlelight vigil on the Lawn, demonstrated our unity in the face of hate. I’m also heartened by the size of the Unite the Right rally. I don’t want to be misunderstood; a few thousand white supremacists marching through Charlottesville’s streets is a few thousand too many. But when you compare the rally, billed as the largest hate rally in America for decades, to the estimated crowd of 1.8 million at Barack Obama’s inauguration, the contemptible weakness of the white supremacist movement comes into focus. This is a small movement at the fringes of society, almost universally despised, condemned by the leadership of both major political parties. Even our vacillator-in-chief, though he managed to create the perception of ambiguity with his bumbling response, condemned them. The media spotlight that the white supremacists garner may make them seem powerful, but in reality, their movement is politically diminutive. Their aim is to terrorize us and create a false perception of strength. The best insult we can pay them is to refuse to be intimidated or change the way we do business, except insofar as we reaffirm our core values as a community. During the chaos that followed the dispersal of the rally, I was distraught to find Antifa extremists beating people up, as they have done at similar counter-protests across the country in recent months. We need to exorcise from our ranks those who would cede any part of the moral high ground and disregard the great Martin Luther King, Jr.’s example of nonviolence. Antifa extremism provides recruiting material for the alt-right and makes it much harder to persuade white supremacists of the error of their ways. We should also not allow the white supremacists to appropriate the debate over historic monuments. Before the white supremacists inserted themselves into the conversation, the debate was a respectful dialogue between people of good will on both sides, a model for the rest of the South to follow as it reckons with its tragic past. At its core, the divide on the monuments is one of perception. To some, the monuments are a statement of white supremacy, a relic of the South’s evil Jim Crow history. To others, the monuments are a tribute to those who fought with valor on behalf of their home, hearth, and state; a set of fixtures in the landscape that evoke a mystical sense of the region’s history, not the evils of racism. So it’s no surprise that the former group passionately believes the monuments must go, and the latter that they must stay. The white supremacists should be viewed as extraneous to this debate and should not be allowed to influence it. If we’re to be true to Charlottesville values, we must work to bridge this divide and reach a shared understanding on what the monuments mean, rather than bulldozing opposition. The main reason our country is so polarized, hateful, and divided is that people of good will have lost the capacity to understand and respect those with whom they disagree. Those seeking to take the monuments down are not on an Orwellian mission to destroy history, and most of those in opposition disagree for legitimate reasons. Irrespective of how one feels about historic monuments, I think all can agree that the South needs more monuments marking milestones in its history of integration. We should never forget that the University of Virginia was once a segregated institution. It’s high time the Law School reckoned with its Jim Crow past and honored the trailblazers who broke the color barrier here. Gregory Swanson, the first black UVa law student, and John F. Merchant, the first black UVa law graduate, merit large, prominent monuments on our campus. I can’t think of a better rebuke to the white supremacists. Ultimately, I don’t feel the same distress I did when I was having those nightmares. I take heart from the currents of history. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” The white supremacists will go the way of the dinosaurs if we fight the good fight, as I know we will. The future belongs to us.