Disclaimer: This transcript is an edited version version of a transcript created using AI technology and may not reflect 100% accuracy.
The video can be found here.
Laurie: Good afternoon and welcome to this week’s webinar which deals with the fight against anti-Semitism on college campuses. Today’s webinar is co-hosted by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), an organization for which I serve as Vice President and Treasurer. SPME focuses on fighting anti-Semitism in the academy, and particularly at the faculty level. Our webinar today will be recorded and available for viewing, so please share far and wide. If you have any questions for our speaker, please place them in the Q and A and I will address as many as possible later in the program. I wanted to share that this will be my last webinar for EMET as I will be stepping down from my position here after around 15 years of working proudly alongside Sarah Stern. I will continue fighting the battles for the survival of Israel and the Jewish people and for US national security. My work will continue to include a focus on campus anti-Semitism. I cannot think of a better webinar to end on than one featuring the brilliant Kenneth Marcus. Kenneth is a friend of both EMET and SPME and his work in the battle against anti-Semitism is critically important. Kenneth is the founder and Chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. He is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University, and the author of The Definition of Anti-Semitism and Jewish Identity in Civil Rights in America. Ken served as Assistant U.S. secretary of Education for Civil Rights; Staff director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and general deputy assistant U.S. secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. He also serves by gubernatorial appointment, as a member of the Board of Visitors at George Mason University, and he formally served as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the same university’s Law School. I’m not going to read Ken’s entire impressive bio, but it was included in the invitation for today’s webinar. Ken has published his work in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Newsweek, USA Today, and Politico. Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon, Ken. We have a lot to talk about. I think the best place to start is with an overview of how we got to where we are today. Ken, you have been working in this space for a very long time. Unlike average Americans, and American Jews in particular, you recognized a long time ago that we have a serious problem in the academy. I too started working in this space many years ago. I joined SPME and did some speaking, but my words fell on deaf ears until October 7th. After October 7th, many people woke up to the dire situation for Jewish students on our campuses. Please begin by addressing cultural Marxism, DEI initiatives and other factors that have fanned the flames of Jew hatred on our campuses. Kenneth: Certainly, Laurie. It has always been an honor to work shoulder to shoulder with both you and Sarah Stern, at EMET. I am honored to be the guest selected for your final EMET Webinar. Some of the earlier work that I did in fighting anti-Semitism was as part of SPME. I served on the board of directors there many years ago. I have been working on this issue for well over 20 years. My initial concern was that some of the severe anti- Zionist incidents were witnessing were a cloak for anti-Semitism. The second intifada followed in the wake of 9/11. At that time, there were a series of incidents reported that were more intense and different in kind than what I had seen before. These incidents occurred on college campuses, as well as in Europe and the Middle East. At the time, I was a civil rights enforcement official, but my focus was not on anti-Semitism. I was concentrating on the various sorts of hate and bias facing other groups. I had thought at that time that my background as a Jewish person would help me fight back against discrimination effectively. When I started seeing the rise in anti-Semitic incidents, I realized things could worsen. I suspected anti-Semitism would become a very substantial and significant problem and I knew we needed to fight back, both on and off college campuses. I understood that we needed to use education, law and policy to protect the rights and interests of Jewish students, Jewish faculty, and other Jewish Americans. We needed to act to ensure Jewish students had the same protections as every other student. You asked me specifically about DEI and cultural Marxism. These were not necessarily the issues I witnessed in 2002, 2003 and 2004. At that time, the resurgence of anti-Semitism was just beginning, as was the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Over the past 20 years, we have watched anti-Semitism evolve and mutate. More recent versions of anti-Semitism have been more obvious on the left. Left-wing anti-Semitism has become fairly widespread on college campuses and is prevalent off campus as well. Right wing anti-Semitism on the street is also a concern, and we deal with it at the Louis D. Brandeis Center as well. However, I would say that left-wing ideologies have been driving much of what we are seeing on college campuses. Laurie: Thanks, Ken. I have argued that left-wing anti-Semitism is more insidious than that coming from the right. It also impacting ideology and thought differently than right-wing anti-Semitism but that is a subject for another webinar Kenneth: If someone asked me whether I want to get punched from the left or punched from the right, I would say I want to block those punches irrespective of where they come from. Laurie: Right. What role does foreign money play in generating campus anti-Semitism? Qatar and Saudi Arabia have spent decades funding universities with billions of dollars. Do you believe that the Trump administration or Congress should cut off foreign funding to federally funded academic institutions? Should they require transparency with regard to how academic institutions are spending foreign dollars? Recently, several watchdog groups filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Education. They are seeking records showing details of Qatar’s funding of our universities. Kenneth: I think foreign funding plays a significant and harmful role in instigating campus anti-Semitism. Some of the funding is clearly being provided by foreign entities with nefarious intentions. In other cases, the foreign entities providing funding do not necessarily have negative intentions. Some countries are subsidizing U.S. universities so they can have satellite campuses in their countries. In these instances, their primary intention is simply to educate their own students. Nevertheless, the implications of this may be very negative. U.S. Students may go over to campuses in the foreign countries and become brainwashed there. Similarly, U.S. faculty are going over there and are also being propagandized. Some of these countries are no friends of the United States but they end up having disproportionate influence over our higher education institutions. That is the best-case scenario. At a minimum, universities should be required to disclose foreign funds. Measures should be implemented to punish those failing to meet disclosure requirements. The consequences should be severe. That is to say, if a university fails to disclose significant foreign funding, the punishment should be more than a rap on the knuckles. At minimum it should be a very substantial fine so as to deter further bad behavior. The money pouring into US universities is impacting their curricula and influencing the way they address anti-Semitic incidents. The funds are also being funneled to student groups and likely fueling protest activities on campus. We have more suspicions than proof right now because it is very difficult to trace the money. We are focusing on tracing it because we want to ensure the perpetrators are ultimately held accountable for their actions, ideally, in a court of law. Laurie: Let’s talk about faculty for a minute. Trump is taking steps to deport foreign students who support terror organizations. What about faculty? SPME focuses on faculty because they influence the hearts and minds of generations of young people. How does tenure play into the issue of combatting faculty anti-Semitism? Can influential, anti-Semitic faculty members be fired if they violate students’ civil rights or campus codes of conduct? Kenneth: Faculty is a big and complex issue and tenure is just part of it. I completely agree that we cannot solve the problems we are facing in higher education without dealing with anti-Semitic faculty members. For example, we could eliminate all of the unlawful DEI problems addressed in President Trump’s recent executive order and still not get to the root of the problems perpetrated by the faculty. Critical race theory, post colonialism and other related ideologies are poisoning the atmosphere on campus. The faculty promoting these ideologies are using their power to eliminate discipline for perpetrators and they are shaping the education students are receiving. Tenure is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it protects faculty wrongdoers from accountability. On the other hand, it protects those who speak the truth. Faculty members with common sense are badly outnumbered at their universities. There are universities with a small numbers of pro-Israel faculty members in important positions. If tenure was to be eliminated, they would be at risk. That would mean the good guys are impacted rather than the perpetrators. If, for example, Columbia University was to eliminate tenure, I do not think Joseph Massad would be the first to lose his job. Shai Davidai is an example of someone who has sparked controversy by speaking the truth and doing it with courage. So, tenure is a double-edged sword. Outside of abolishing tenure, there are other ways to deal with anti-Semitic faculty. The recent settlement with Harvard University is a good illustration of this. Harvard is now taking very strong measures to deal with anti-Semitism. As part of our settlement, they have agreed to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. They have agreed to use the IHRA definition not just as an educational tool, but in their disciplinary process as well. This is great news for those of us who care about fighting anti-Semitism, but terrible news for those who are perpetrating it. A couple of instructors at Harvard have announced they are leaving the University because they are so upset with recent developments. This sort of faculty self-termination is not necessarily a bad thing. At least one Harvard faculty member has said their scholarship would be considered anti-Semitic within the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism. They have expressed concern that people are going to start censoring themselves. I think that if they are anti-Semitic bigots, they should censor themselves. In other words, it is okay for them to think twice before they engage in anti-Semitism. If they are unable to do that, they should resign from institutions of higher learning. I am not shedding tears over Harvard instructors who are now quitting Harvard University out of fear of what is going to happen in the wake of the recent settlement. Laurie: I am glad you brought up the Harvard settlement. I was going to ask you about it a little bit later, but let’s talk about it now. You called the Harvard settlement a watershed moment and you stated, “We expect it will have an extraordinary impact on colleges and universities around the country. There is now a Harvard standard that other colleges will have to strive to meet.” Can you elaborate on what that standard is and whether you think other schools will follow suit? Columbia has received over $6 billion in taxpayer funding over the past five years yet Joseph Massad is now teaching a course on Zionism and the history of Israel there this semester. For those who do not remember, Joseph Mossad is the professor who called the Hamas attack on Israel “awesome”. Johannah King-Slutzky has now been rewarded by Columbia with a teaching position. She is the woman who was shown begging for humanitarian aid when the pro Hamas rioters took over Hamilton Hall. So, please discuss more about the Harvard standard, and whether you think it will be met by other universities. Kenneth: Sure. Harvard is not the first university to agree to improve its policies under the threat of litigation or federal investigation. However, the settlement with Harvard is especially important because other institutions frequently copy or emulate Harvard. Academic institutions across the United States follow their lead. Both the Brandeis Center and another firm brought cases against Harvard and they subsequently agreed to a substantial and robust package of measures. Most significantly, they agreed to use the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism in adjudicating discrimination issues. The IHRA is also known as the gold standard definition of anti-Semitism. According to the IHRA definition, not every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but many of them are. The definition provides examples so people clearly understand that anti-Zionism tends to be a form of anti-Semitism. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is roughly analogous to Natan Sharansky’s famous 3D test. This is to say, something may be considered anti-Semitic if it demonizes, delegitimizes or applies different standards to the State of Israel. The IHRA definition was embraced during the George W. Bush administration, both at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which I directed at the time, and at the State Department. It was more formally adopted, albeit in a slightly different form, by the Obama administration under Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton. During the first Trump administration, it was elevated to an executive order and then it was used again, perhaps differently, during the Biden administration. This definition of anti-Semitism is now embraced by approximately two thirds of our states. To the extent there is one, it is the consensus definition of anti-Semitism in this country. Despite protests from left wing activists on college campuses, it clarifies that some forms of discrimination against Zionists, is discrimination against Jews. In addition to employing the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Harvard agreed to provide detailed examples of anti-Zionist activities that are anti-Semitic. They agreed to do this very specifically and with very useful language. Harvard also agreed to other remedies, including having the Brandeis Center perform educational programming at the university. We represented students at Harvard’s Kennedy School who were prevented from discussing Israel as a Jewish democracy in one particular classroom. Now they are going to design coursework on that topic for the entire school. That said, our most important victory was to have Harvard agree on record that punishing Zionists is punishing Jews and that Jews are as protected as anyone else against discrimination. Harvard has agreed to implement these principles, not just as part of its curriculum, but also as part of its non-discrimination policy. It is an important development that we hope to see emulated around the country. Rules against Zionists are rules against Jews and universities need to recognize that. The University of California at Berkeley has failed to acknowledge it and we have sued them and have a case pending against them in Federal District court in California. Administrators at many other universities are also reluctant to acknowledge that a rule against Zionists is a rule against Jews. On a positive note, we were able to compile a joint statement with Chancellor Jones at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign UIUC. Then we concluded a resolution agreement and a side agreement through which the University of Illinois will integrate the notion that anti Zionism is anti-Semitism, into their policies. We have had similar successes at other universities as well. Laurie: Terrific. That is great work, Ken, and great news for everyone who hopes to bring the truth back to campus. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism reminds me of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. The Anti Semitism Awareness Act codifies a Trump-era executive order declaring that antisemitism is a prohibited form of discrimination in schools and universities. It requires the Department of Education use the IHRA working definition of antisemitism in assessing complaints of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. It was held up in the Senate by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Last year, Schumer refused to join Republicans Mike Lawler, Elise Stefaniak and Virginia Fox when they visited Columbia University in the midst of the anti-Semitic chaos there. Instead, he advised Columbia’s President that her best strategy was to keep her head down in response to the violent and pervasive anti-Semitism on her campus. He told her that Columbia’s political problems were really only a Republican concern. Why do you think that confronting anti-Semitism has become such a partisan issue and what are the longer-term implications of it? I would love for you to share the experience that you just had with Virginia Democrats who blocked you from sitting on the board of George Mason University. Kenneth: Thank you, Laurie. I will start with the last part of your question. I was very proud and pleased when Governor Glenn Youngkin nominated me to serve on the Board of Trustees at George Mason University in Virginia. We call it a Board of Visitors. I have been on the board at George Mason University for a number of months and will remain there for at least another few days. The State Senate voted against the nominees for George Mason by party line vote but the process is not over. The matter, which includes my nomination, will likely hit the floor of the House of Delegates in Virginia this afternoon and will be resolved by Friday. So far, the votes have been along party lines and Democrats have a majority of both the Senate and the House of Delegates in Virginia. As such, I was voted down in the Senate and had a negative vote in the House Committee. Nevertheless, the process continues until it is over and I have been heartened to see a very large show of support from both Democrats and Republicans in Virginia. Many Virginia Democrats have reached out to me to let me know they are writing to their state senators, to their delegates. The Jewish community of Virginia has been turning out to support me and I understand there are more people this afternoon who may be reaching out to the delegates and senators. I think it is important and valuable that the Jewish community has support among both Democrats and Republicans. You mentioned the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. I want to add to the points you already mentioned on this topic. Yesterday, Congressman Moskowitz, a Democrat, joined Congressman Lawler, a Republican, in submitting a bipartisan version of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act in the House of Representatives. Reportedly, Democratic Senator Jackie Rosen is planning to join Republican Senator Tim Scott in introducing the Senate version. I think it is a very good sign that both versions are bipartisan. Last year the Republican run House of Representatives passed the Anti Semitism Awareness Act and the Democratic run Senate did not. Nevertheless, I think it was notable that a significant majority of Democrats in the House voted in favor of the bill, as did a significant majority of Republicans. It might be that the Republican tally was higher, but I do think that support among House Democrats has been useful. I also suspect that if there is a roll call vote in the Senate, we will also see a many of Democrats as well as a majority of Republicans voting in favor of it. Neither caucus appears to be 100% in support, but both seem to be very much in support. Republicans are more heavily skewed in favor, and that is a good thing but let’s not ignore the importance and the value of the support that Democrats are providing as well. Some of the very many active and influential Jewish Democrats are working very hard on this cause. Laurie: Richie Torres and John Fetterman are two of our best friends in Congress and they are both Democrats. That said, even though we do still have a lot of good friends on the democratic side of the aisle, it does appear that the issue of anti-Semitism in Congress is becoming partisan, if it is not already. My next question is about free speech. Democrats who refuse to support the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, claim it impinges on free speech. Campus administrators who refuse to rein in violence, harassment and intimidation of Jewish students and faculty, claim they have a right to academic freedom. They are not prepared to punish contraventions of campus code of conduct, let alone civil rights violations. The protestors who took over Columbia’s Hamilton Hall are an extreme example. Alvin Bragg freed them all. It appears Columbia imposed few consequences on them even though they violated campus rules and property. Last week, Columbia students took over another building. They spray painted it and poured cement down the toilets. Many years ago, Asaf Romirowsky and I wrote an article titled “College Administrators must address Anti-Semitism on their Campuses”. Among other demands, we called for the adoption of IHRA. We wrote the article well before October 7th but anti-Semitism on campus continues. It will not stop until they know there is a price to pay. Now that Trump is president, do you think the threat of losing federal funds will make them wake up and take action? Kenneth: I think it does not make sense to refuse to act against anti-Semitism because of professed concerns about freedom of speech. It is mostly Jewish and pro-Israel students who are being silenced. Pro-Israel students are being prevented from speaking their truth or expressing their identities as Jews and as Zionists. If they do, they face the threat of social stigma and even physical violence. It is the failure of enforcement, and not aggressive enforcement that has led to the censorship and silencing of students and faculty. If we really care about free speech and the marketplace of ideas, we need to provide an even playing field and eliminate double standards. Having said that, I do think that free speech is important when it comes to any form of enforcement but we must follow the same standards in all cases. You asked me what it will take to make university administrators do the right thing. I am very pleased the Trump administration is implementing very strong steps in this regard. It is one thing for a presidential candidate to speak in strong terms, but another for him to follow up with concrete action. The strong words of candidate Donald Trump have been followed by the very strong actions of President Donald Trump in the first days of his administration. Importantly, President Trump’s executive orders are already being implemented. The Department of Justice has formed a new task force and the U.S. Department of Education, the Office for Civil Rights, and the Department of Health and Human Services have all announced they will be conducting proactive investigations. Investigations at the Department of Health and Human Services indicate that they recognize that anti-Semitism is having a very deleterious effect in teaching hospitals and other health sector institutions. This makes it difficult or impossible for certain Jewish medical practitioners to do their work and prevents Jewish patients from getting the level of care that they deserve. Laurie: I am glad you brought that up. I do not think people realize how much medical schools have been impacted by DEI. This negatively impacts Jewish students and patients, as you pointed out. I want to return to our discussion about academic freedom. There are professors who lie about Israel, the history of the region, the Palestinians and/or the Holocaust. Are those professors protected by their right to academic freedom? Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously stated that you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Shouldn’t professors be required to maintain academic standards regarding the accuracy of what they teach? There was a recent event organized by Berkeley’s Gender and Women’s Studies department. The event taught how Zionism weaponizes feminism to promote genocide. It covered how the atrocities committed against Israelis on October 7th, including rape, were fabricated. Do the principles of academic freedom require that Berkeley allow this event to take place? Berkeley’s spokesperson stated the event could continue until the Academic Senate determines it is inconsistent with the university’s academic standards. What does that say about Berkeley’s academic standards? They are permitting an event at asserts the women who were raped on 10/7, were lying. Kenneth: Yeah. The Louis D. Brandeis Center has absolutely sued the regents of the University of California over what is happening on Berkeley’s campus. We are suing them for incidents on campus both before and after October 7th. The law school at the University of California at Berkeley is my alma mater. As many as 22 of their student organizations have adopted constitutions and bylaws that bar Zionists. Berkeley is also the institution where students have been physically assaulted, including one who was hit over the head with a water bottle. Although there are some thorny issues involving academic freedom at any institution, we have to remember there are simple issues as well. At one point, the communications representatives for the Regents insisted they cannot limit anti-Semitic activity because of free speech protections. Well, nobody has the right to hit a Jewish student over the head with a water bottle. This is an example of an incident that is so obviously illegal that we do not need to consider the question of freedom of speech or academic freedom. It is true that there are interesting and difficult questions we need to address regarding anti-Semitism on campus. However, it is also true that we are seeing widespread violations of the basic civil rights of Jewish students and faculty on US campuses. There are academic freedom protections in the classroom, but the issue is a complicated one. There are some exceptions to the academic freedom doctrine. An example is the introduction of extraneous material when speaking on topics unrelated to the course being taught. At California public institutions of math and science, for example, professors in STEM classes have spouted off extensively about Israel. That is not an exercise of academic freedom. There are also rules regarding academic freedom which caution instructors about introducing unduly controversial opinions into the classroom. These have been adopted even by institutions like the American Association of University Professors. So, there are protections available but one needs to be careful before intruding into what is truly academic freedom and protected speech. We are seeing many cases where professors abuse academic freedom by performing less teaching and more activism. They are introducing extraneous propaganda and indoctrination into the classroom and that type of instruction is not protected as academic freedom. Laurie: It seems perverse to me that someone like Joseph Massad is teaching a course on Zionism and the history of Israel at Columbia. The University of Michigan recently suspended their Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter for two years. I wish they had been permanently expelled from campus, but this appears to be a positive first step. An AMCHA study from several years ago revealed that where there’s an SJP chapter on campus, there is a seven times greater incidence of anti-Semitism on that campus. SJP has been at the forefront of perpetuating and fomenting Jew hatred on campus. Why are college administrators not removing them from campus? Is this another free speech issue? How do you balance free speech rights against code of conduct violations? These groups are shutting down pro-Israel speaker events at Chabad and at Hillel. Where do you draw the line? Kenneth: Times are changing. Administrators are starting to realize that there will be consequences for allowing extremist organizations to remain active on their campuses. These organizations are fomenting racial hatred and administrators are starting to understand they may be held responsible for this. Just a few years ago, administrators were refusing to take any action. Now, when Jewish organizations point to violations of student codes of conduct code and other rules, they are taking action. We are seeing instances of SJP chapters being suspended or otherwise removed, at least for a period of time. I think that Fordham University showed exemplary leadership a few years ago. At that time, it refused to recognize a chapter of SJP on the obvious grounds that SJP’s values were inconsistent with those of their university. Every university should ask themselves the same question. If they answer in the affirmative, it tells us a lot about them. Increasingly, we are seeing that institutions are willing either to suspend or punish SJP for violations of their rules. This is a positive development but they should not be waiting for SJP to violate their rules and harm their students before taking action. They should be asking whether the values of the SJP chapter are consistent with the university’s values. If they are not, they should not be allowed on campus. SJP has been making statements at a national level that appeared to support Hamas. Their support for Hamas does not appear to be confined to rhetoric and they may be providing a level of support for Hamas that runs afoul of national anti-terrorism law. That is another reason to take the dangers posed by these organizations seriously. We are talking about potential violence and also criminality here. This is a larger question which the Grande Center and the Anti-Defamation League raised with many university presidents a year ago. Laurie: Thanks, Ken. What your thoughts on shutting down the Department of Education (DOE). Trump talked about it as presidential candidate. He promised that it was something he was going to consider. This week, we heard it is something that is actually on the table. What are your thoughts on the likelihood that the DOE will be shut down completely or significantly altered? How might that impact campus anti-Semitism? Kenneth: Sure, Government agencies can come and go. It is common for agencies to be created to resolve a particular problem and then stay around for a long time. There certainly are precedents for closing agencies that are no longer doing effective work. Years ago, I interned at the Interstate Commerce Commission. At that time, commissioners were asking whether they really needed to continue as an institution. That agency was closed down several years after that and interstate commerce did not come to a halt. The DOE was created as a standalone entity during the Carter administration. I do not think anybody can point to improvements in the quality of American education since it was established. If anything, test scores among American students have declined since then. It is perfectly reasonable to question whether the Department of Education has succeeded or failed. If we conclude the DOE has failed under different administrations and different parties, maybe we should consider alternatives. Closing the DOE does not imply all of its components will disappear. I ran the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) under both the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations. Under most of the proposals that I have seen, the OCR would be placed elsewhere if the DOE was eliminated. One of the options is to place it under the Department of Justice. I could envision several different plans for merging OCR into the Department of Justice. Some options could result in a decline in effective enforcement but others could preserve the quality of enforcement and even enhance it. Integrating OCR into the Department of Justice has the potential to combine the investigative forces of OCR with the litigation capacities of the Department of Justice. This could create more impactful responses from the federal government. So, closing the DOE does not imply the work of the OCR will not continue. As I discussed, there are ways that OCR’s work in countering anti-Semitism could actually be improved without the DOE. Laurie: Great. Please discuss the work you are doing at the Brandeis Center. Please cover what you think are the strongest tools to help stem the tide of campus anti-Semitism. We have spoken a little about the role of OCR, the DOE and DOJ. We discussed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act and Trump’s executive orders. The Trump administration has promised to make higher education great again. Please discuss the tools that you plan to use to help fight anti-Semitism. Kenneth: Sure, Laurie, thank you. Well, we are working on a number of different fronts. As I mentioned earlier, we are filing lawsuits and fighting anti-Semitism in court and are likely to have some announcements in that regard soon. We have significantly increased our bandwidth in the area of litigation and we have a fairly strong unit dedicated to it. We are more focused than ever on making sure that institutions relying on taxpayer support meet their obligations to the American people. If not, they should not continue to receive federal funds. The Trump administration is very open to countering anti-Semitism in education and we are filing more complaints to give them more material to use in this regard. We are also interacting with the administration in ways that we hope will continue to shape their response to anti-Semitism. We have been active on the Hill and we will probably be expanding our work in that area as well. We testify frequently before Congress and work on both the oversight and the legislative function. We need to fight in the courts and work the policy side at the same time. We work with students to help them to articulate their issues in ways that will resonate with administrators. Sometimes students approach us with a concern that does not turn out to be a case. In those instances, we might raise the issue with the university on the student’s behalf if that takes the pressure off of them. If they are open to speaking for themselves, we will advise them on how to do that effectively. Sadly, Jewish students, Jewish faculty, and other Jewish Americans are being falsely accused of offenses more and more often and we defend many of them. Oftentimes these are Jews standing up for their rights as Jews, Israelis and Zionists and they are getting punished for it. As an example, Jewish students who report incidents are often told to bring evidence of the harassment they face. However, if the student takes a photograph or makes a video to prove harassment, they are faced with a retaliatory complaint. They are accused of doxing or harassing the perpetrators. If Jews attempt to prove harassment by members of a specific minority groups, they may be accused of things like anti- Arab or anti-Muslim discrimination. So, we perform a significant amount of defense work for Jewish Americans who are falsely accused. Laurie: It is such important work and we are really lucky to have you on our side. Audience members are asking about anti-Semitism in K-12 education. Someone noted that the Deborah Project lost their lawsuit against the introduction of the liberated ethnic studies curriculum in California. Can you offer any suggestions about how to counter the teachers’ unions, university professors, consultants and others who are mobilizing teachers, students and school board trustees to continue teaching anti-Zionist narratives to K-12 students? Kenneth: The anti-Semitism we are seeing at K-12 institutions resembles what we observed on college campuses just a few years ago and it is horrifying. This is a very significant change with potential long-term consequences. Earlier, you asked me about foreign influence on American campuses and it is a real problem. Students being indoctrinated in American high schools, may worsen the anti-Semitic environment on college campuses when they arrive there. We are seeing elementary and high-school students replicating the activism of their older siblings. They are repeating the chants we are used to hearing on college campuses verbatim and organizing walkouts at their schools. We are seeing anti-Semitism in high schools being driven by teachers’ unions and by school boards. They have adopted ethnic studies or liberated ethnic studies programs that include anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamations. As you mentioned, the Deborah Project’s lawsuit against them was recently dismissed, but the Brandeis Center is also suing Southern California. We have a lawsuit pending against the Orange County Santa Ana Public School system. We are partnering in this with StandWithUs, ADL, AJC and others. I think this lawsuit is an important, initial lawsuit and we plan to file more as necessary. We are looking at school districts that have created a toxic environment for Jewish students. We have a team of lawyers in Southern California who are leading the charge. So, the Brandeis Center is open to hearing from parents and families around the country whose children are being harassed and bullied. We may be able to offer them legal advice and support. Laurie: A number of audience members are requesting more detail on the Harvard case. One audience member asked if Jewish students could be impacted by Harvard’s rules punishing people for publishing a photo or video of someone on campus. Could that hurt Jewish students gathering evidence of harassment or intimidation? Another audience member asked if Harvard is going to punish the Chancellor for the chants of “From the River to the Sea” and “Globalize the Intifada”? Kenneth: Yeah. We have a release about the Harvard settlement on the Brandeis Center’s website. Our release includes all of the information about the settlement which is not subject to a confidentiality order. A structure has now been created under which cases of alleged anti-Semitism will be reviewed. It is never going to be perfect but it creates a defined set of rules than for Harvard to follow when reviewing these cases. Harvard will also hire an anti-Semitism specialist who will be part of the reviews and who will oversee the cases involving alleged anti-Semitism. The specialist will provide regular reports, including public reports. They will ensure Harvard employs the same standards for protecting Jewish students as it does for any other student group. A settlement agreement can never encompass every potential situation that could occur, but we have created policy rules, standards, reporting and oversight to improve the current situation. Laurie: An audience member asked if non-citizen students and foreign professors could be deported if they endorse or support terrorist activity. We know that Trump has signed an executive order dealing with this issue. I would like to take this question a step further and ask whether foreign students and faculty have the same freedom of speech rights as U.S. citizens. Kenneth: They do not. You are right, Laurie, the President’s executive order tasked cabinet level agencies with finding ways to ensure universities work with the federal government regarding faculty and students who do not meet admissibility requirements under immigration law. The agencies involved include Education, Homeland Security and Justice. There is a role to be played by the public here. They should report faculty or students engaged in anti-Semitic bullying and violating the terms of their visas. The perpetrators can be reported to Homeland Security, ICE, and the Department of Justice. We are already seeing actions by the federal government when it comes to preparing some of these individuals for deportation. I would expect some of these anti-Semites who are violating US Law; the rules of their colleges and universities; and the terms of their visas, to be sent home. I expect to see this happening in the coming weeks and months. Laurie: You mentioned the anti-Semitism that is deeply embedded at Harvard Kennedy School. An audience member asked how we can combat anti-Semitism in the next generation of politicians. The Kennedy School is not just the feeder school for politicians, but for foreign policy experts and advisors as well. What are your thoughts on the long-term implications of this? Kenneth: The Kennedy School is an elite institution teaching public policy at Harvard University. Nowadays, it seems like they prepare fewer politicians for elective office and more consultants for McKinsey positions. That said, it is important to clean things up at institutions like the Kennedy School because some political appointees definitely come from there. Many state legislators, who become members of Congress and high-level appointees, come through law schools around the country. For years we have been concerned that anti-Zionist groups are claiming the law schools. The Jewish community has been very successful at supporting undergraduate students at some campuses but has not been focused on the law schools. So, we at the Brandeis center have developed a number of different programs for law students. These include providing fellowships and clerkships and creating chapters at law schools. We are trying to build a type of army of Jewish lawyers who may become pro-Jewish lawyers and judges and who will also become leaders in Congress and in and in government. Laurie: Have you come across instances of retaliation against students who express politically incorrect views in papers or classroom discussions? And if so, what can be done about it? Kenneth: If the retaliation is anti-Semitic in nature, then the Brandeis center may be able to support them. If it is a different sort of unpopular opinion not related to anti-Semitism, there are other organizations that might be able to help them. Groups like Speech First or Southeast Legal, are examples of organizations which support people who are saying things that are unpopular and being punished for it. Laurie: As a follow up to our discussion on the DOE and the OCR, could we set national standards and require curricula be developed in accordance with those standards? If the DOE was dismantled, would we lose the opportunity to set such standards? Kenneth: There has always been an ambivalence about addressing curricula at the DOE. There are statutes that prohibit the DOE from imposing curricula. These provisions have stopped administrations which have tried to impose common core or other curricula that may have been considered controversial. Conservatives have tended to be divided on the extent to which the federal government should be involved in curricula. On the one hand, they are concerned about federal intrusion into curricula development for federalist reasons. On the other hand, there is an argument that the federal government has a legitimate role to play to ensure its investments are not being used in ways that violate federal law. It is encouraging to see that President Trump signed an order prohibiting indoctrination in K-12 institutions. This is in addition to his anti-Semitism order. The order prohibiting indoctrination indicates the Trump II administration may be willing to address the so-called “woke” curricula. It could imply that stereotypes against Jews or others may have implications under federal civil rights law. This may be an early indication that the Trump II administration will take seriously the need to ensure federal investments are not misused through indoctrination of elementary and secondary school students. Laurie: Thank you so much and thank you to everybody in the audience. There were a lot of questions and I apologize to everyone that we could not address them all. We could probably talk for another hour on these issues, but I am sure EMET will invite Ken back at some point in the future. We appreciate your support and look forward to seeing you all sometime in the future. Thank you. Have a good afternoon. Kenneth: Thank you. Presenter: Thank you, Laurie and Kenneth. I want to remind our viewers that we are on Capitol Hill almost every single day, educating our policymakers on the ever-changing situation in the Middle East and providing them with an in-depth analysis. Please remember to support an EMET at https://emetonline.org/. Thank you again, Laurie. It has been a pleasure working with you and we are going to miss you. [END]
EMET Profoundly Appreciates President Trump for Breaking Out of a Failed Foreign Policy Paradigm
EMET Strongly Applauds White House Decision to Enforce Immigration Laws against Foreign Students Protesting for Hamas
Help us work to ensure that our policymakers and the public receive the EMET- the Truth.
Take Action