Attorneys Neal Sher and Joel Siegel have filed new campus anti-Semitism charges against the University of California at Berkeley as part of their continuing case against Berkeley before the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The new claims are based on the hostile environment which they allege Jewish students faced in the run-up to Berkeley’s recent Israel divestment vote. Sher and Siegel are both members of the Brandeis Center’s Legal Advisory Board, although their case against Berkeley is filed in their own capacity as attorneys. In a new statement, issued today Sher and Siegel explain their new claims. This week civil rights attorneys filed amendments to a pending charge of discrimination against The University of California, Berkeley. Last July attorneys Joel Siegal of San Francisco and New York attorney Neal Sher filed charges with the U.S. Education and Justice Departments against Berkeley alleging that Jewish and pro-Israel students had been subjected to intimidation and harassment, which the University failed to prevent, as was its duty under Title VI of the Civil rights act. The government opened a full investigation which is being vigorously pursued and remains open. The new amendments allege that UC Berkeley has continued to violate Title VI by allowing the perpetuation of a hostile environment in the weeks leading up to and throughout debate on a University Student Senate Bill calling for divestment from Israel. These additional allegations focus on the recent debate and vote by the Berkeley Student Union supporting divestment from Israel. That vote was accompanied by blatant threats against and harassment and intimidation of Jewish and pro-Israel students. In the amendment, the vote and surrounding actions is described as “nothing short of an anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic Festival”, which the university failed to control as was its obligation under Title VI. The six-page document cites extensive material initially reported in the Daily Californian, the Campus independent newspaper that depict an environment replete with death threats and vitriolic accusations targeting Jewish students and opponents of the divestment initiative. Indeed, the atmosphere was so poisonous that Independent Daily Californian reporters felt compelled to comment on the degree of radicalism and venom on display at the hearing and in the vote aftermath. A copy of the amendment letter is attached. The amendment letter also acknowledges a point which has been ignored during divestment debates: that the University Chancellor agreed that Divestment resolutions have no legal bearing (presumably, since they violate the ERISA sec. 404(a) (1) (A) (B). Such a declaration, however, has no bearing on the main assertion of the amendments, namely that the campus climate was poisoned by the resolution and that Title VI was violated.