Pages

Friday, January 11, 2013

The definition of Zionism by Mort Klein, Zionist Organization of America

The “something amiss in higher education” is not education itself, but rather the inappropriate politics that colors too much of campus life. The solution is not to balance one biased ideology with another but rather to eliminate politics altogether, except as a tool to teach students (and many faculty) to think for themselves.



For some time the statement held by so many on campuses who believe the Israel-Arab conflict is the result of Zionism, and that equates Zionism with a form of race hatred, where the word itself is used as an epitaph of derision and disdain, raised this Religion Writer’s curiosity to discover a better definition of Zionism. In an effort to find out what Zionism might be, an inquiry was made of Zionist Organization of America’s President Morton A. Klein.

Article and interview by Peter Menkin



Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America

Societal support for higher education is grounded in the belief that democracy is reinforced by a good liberal arts education. Stanley N. Katz, director of Princeton University’s Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, warned of the need to reform higher education: “A great deal is at stake for undergraduate education, and for the country. If we believe, as so many of the founders of liberal education did, that the vitality of American democracy depends upon the kind of liberal education undergraduates receive, we need to put the reimagination of liberal education near the top of our agenda for education in our research universities.” Americans cherish their institutions of higher education and are rightfully proud of their quality and world leadership. Students from around the United States and the rest of the globe make great sacrifices to study at American universities, and they generally graduate well-positioned for successful careers and poised to make important contributions to society. The “something amiss in higher education” is not education itself, but rather the inappropriate politics that colors too much of campus life. The solution is not to balance one biased ideology with another but rather to eliminate politics altogether, except as a tool to teach students (and many faculty) to think for themselves.

From the section, “Reclaiming the Civil University,” from Uncivil University Executive Summary.
 
 
INTRODUCTION BY THE RELIGION WRITER PETER MENKIN TO THE SERIES
The multi part series I’ve been working on since July, 2012 came to an end in November, 2012. I expect to continue to post this series on the Jewish community’s complaint regarding bullying Jewish Students on University Campuses, and the new use of Title VI 1964 Civil Rights action to effect this problem of bullying students on University campuses. This standpoint of a large if not majority segment of the established Jewish Community in the United States is a report on a given point of view that finds Israel part of this conversation and also the point of view this behavior represents anti-Semitism.

This introduction introduces to the fifth of an going series of six or more interviews, each with Addendum consisting of relevant documents on the matter of bullying Jewish Students and the use of Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964 in finding redress is an indication of the more strident and tense situation regarding bullying Jewish students on American campuses. This interview is the second of the series and is held with Morton A. Klein, President, Zionist Organization of America. The conversation via land-line phone from my home office in Mill Valley, California was made to his office in New York City by me, Peter Menkin. The finalization of the text of the interview was made December 10, 2012.

… a collection of voices in interview from American Jewish Community regarding the real concern by them of bullying Jewish students on some University campuses plays a significant role in unmasking anti-Israel actions and behavior as anti-Semitism. That is the Jewish Community thesis and argument brought to legal remedy through Federal Law that is the theme of this series. The basis for this kind of hate and anti-Semitism, bad behavior at best and hateful activity at worst, is evident in the practiced belief that Zionism is an evil belief by those whose actions show them as performing the Jewish bullying.

Claim made by the organization in their words: Founded in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America (“ZOA”) is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. With offices around the country and in Israel, the ZOA is dedicated to educating the public, elected officials, media, and college/high school students about the truth of the ongoing and relentless Arab war against Israel. ZOA is also committed to promoting strong U.S.-Israel relations. ZOA works to protect Jewish college and high school students from intimidation, harassment and discrimination, and in fighting anti-Semitism in general.
 
Since its founding in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America has been fighting for the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Under the leadership of such illustrious presidents as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, and current National President Morton A. Klein, the ZOA has been on the front lines of Jewish activism.

With a national membership of over 30,000, and chapters throughout the United States (including Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, North Jersey, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, South Jersey and Washington D.C.), the ZOA today works to strengthen US-Israeli relations, through educational activities, public affairs programs, working every day on Capitol Hill, and by combating anti-Israel bias in the media, textbooks, and on campuses.


For some time the statement held by so many on campuses who believe the Israel-Arab conflict is the result of Zionism, and that equates Zionism with a form of race hatred, where the word itself is used as an epitaph of derision and disdain, raised this Religion Writer’s curiosity to discover a better definition of Zionism. In an effort to find out what Zionism might be, an inquiry was made of Zionist Organization of America’s President Morton A. Klein. During one of the research periods of this look at bullying Jewish students on campus and the new anti-Semitism, some YouTube webcasts of Morton A. Klein giving speeches on the problems of Israel-Arab conflict, and especially that of bullying Jewish students here in the United States were viewed. There were few of the latter.
In one particular YouTube of a speech, Mr. Klein said he wanted the opportunity to comment on Zionism and something of its Biblical origin and meaning. Though Mr. Klein did not remember that particular remark when asked, it did stick in this writer’s mind so it was interpreted to lead to an interview on the subject. But the main reason for the interview, aside from the active nature the organization plays in this area of University harassment and need for redress, at least as complained by and alleged by the organizations cited in this series, is that Zionist Organization of America is active in leadership regarding seeking redress for the issues at hand through use of Title VI. They are also part of the Jewish community establishment, and solidly a part of the Jewish scene that is organized in a national manner in the United States.

During the time of research and writing of this series, University Presidents and administration officials at University of California were contacted through press officers. No press officer provided a satisfactory response substantive to the subject meriting quotation. No University of California administrator, but a few, at almost any level including top levels cared enough to comment for this Religion Writer, let alone respond.


INTERVIEW WITH ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA PRESIDENT MORTON A. KLEIN WITH PETER MENKIN
  1. 1.      In the area of an issue that has involved the Jewish Community, and in specific, too, Zionist Organization of America, bullying of Jewish students on University campuses has been met with actions through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Zionist Organization of America “…been on the front lines of Jewish activism…” Part of the issue regarding bullying of students is one of anti-Semitism and for the purposes of this interview, acts of anti-Zionism as way to anti-Semitism. It seems this method of developing a hateful atmosphere towards Israel through this kind of propaganda can be successful and cause significant trouble for Jewish students on University campuses in the United States. For readers’ information, please tell us what is the Zionist perspective on the creation of the State of Israel and if you will, give us Biblical reference and citation in your response.
About ten or fifteen percent of Jews in America are religious. But that’s a separate issue. In the Old Testament God says to Abraham that I will give you this land for you and your children, and your grandchildren. All the land that you see is yours. It is in the Bible that the Bible explicitly states, frankly, what’s today Israel–and much more to the Jewish people. This is anybody who is born of a Jewish mother or is converted. Abraham was the first Jew. That’s why Evangelical Christians are fervent and supporters of Israel. God gave this land and don’t give it away. End of this issue.
King David was the first King of Israel, and that was before 1948. One of the reasons that the Bible is written by God, not Israel and Jews, is that…only God would put in how King David lived his life, and he had many flaws. In the Bible he sent the husband of a woman he desired to the front lines of a war to increase the likelihood to be killed so he could readily have his wife. The fact that one of the great people in history, and his acts were flawed. Our Sages tell us [this is so for it is] that only God would tell the whole truth…
It’s remarkable that, first of all, the Muslims have approximately fifty Muslim countries. Many of them do not allow the free practice of Judaism or Christianity. Many of them are “larger” than the United States. Their enmity towards Jews is so great; they don’t even want the Jews to have a country that is no larger than New Jersey. … It is an open and democratic society that is the opposite of apartheid.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said, when you are talking anti-Zionism, you are talking anti-Semitism. If you talk against the State of Israel you hate Jews. The State of Israel in its establishment gave the right to vote to its 20% that are Muslim. For believers in God and Bible believers, [the creation] of Israel was an act of God. For most people this was an act of God. For others this was the creation of a State in 1948 to provide a safe and secure place to live. 100 years before the State of Israel there were pogroms and the Holocaust.

 
  1. 2.      There is myth and misunderstanding about the creation of Israel. In your understanding of its formation and ongoing life, what is its reason to be—especially as it lives today as a State among nations of the World? Is this a matter of religious conviction and appeal, or is it simply realpolitik? Detractors of Israel and in the same measure people who cast evil on the Jewish faith and the State of Israel say it, that is Israel, is an evil nation that does ill to its neighbors, and persecutes people who live in parts of Palestine. Part of a key section of this argument of historic fact, says Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. Will you comment on how Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, in accord with its religious values and its tradition of faith? In a way, detractors and those regarded with responses of being bullies of Jewish students through the reputed failures by evil acts of the Jewish State, go through “teach ins” annually at some Universities. As part of this response to the question, tell readers a few of these “teach in” methods and what is said that is so harmful as to be anti-Semitic and hate speech.
This is a controversy that should never be. The city of Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in the Holy Book. Every Passover we say, “Again in Jerusalem.” The Muslim holiest book doesn’t even mention it. When it was captured in many wars, they never made Jerusalem its capital [but they did make Ramel (720 about).
When Jordan captured Eastern Jerusalem, the real Jerusalem in the Bible. When Jordan had Jerusalem it was a slum. They had no water, no power. No Jordanian visited it. It meant nothing to them. In fact, in the 1948 war, the Jordanians dynamited 68 synagogues in Jerusalem. They then claimed it was not Jewish, after they destroyed the synagogues.
The PLO covenant, talking about how this all their land, [offered] no word of Jerusalem. If it is so holy to them, where is the name Jerusalem. The PLO in 1964, revised [the covenant] in 1968.
The Muslim student associations, that is largely run by professional agitators that have regular meetings on campuses where they say Israel kills babies…disgusting lies that they are…[saying Jews] committed a holocaust against them, and stolen their land by force, has made it on some of these campuses to walk around calling Jews Nazi’s openly. It has made Jewish students not wear Jewish Stars, head coverings, and made Jewish Students uncomfortable on campuses. We are asking administrations to condemn these conferences by name, condemn the students also by name, to make it clear to repudiate these programs. Just to publically repudiate them by name. So far they have only said they condemn anti-Semitism. … I would think the President of Universities condemn this programs by name about these disgusting programs as lie after lie after lie.
Almost every Jew wants to see peace between Arabs and Jews. But these programs and the response of our program is to bring peace. That is its purpose.
 
  1. 3.      Can you speak some about why Zionist Organization of America has reason to be, and what motivates it, and was key in its decision to take on the battle of the issue of bullying Jewish students on campuses? Are there any campuses that have been particularly active in this action of Jewish bullying and hate speech? In your opinion or statement, remind readers if any of the administration or faculty at these Universities has encouraged or participated in what some call, “The New anti-Semitism.” On what do you base this observation: One or two examples are enough?
The reason the Zionist organization of America was created 150 years ago, it was recreating the State of Israel … to recreate the State of Israel in the homeland of the Jewish People. … In the land given by God to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. To the land that the Jews ruled 2000 years ago when they were forced out.

After Israel was recreated in 1948, ZOA’s position has been to promote strong US / Israel relations and to inform the Congress and people about the ongoing Arab war against Israel that which has continued since 1948.  With respect to the campus issue, ZOA has a major campus program on has many campuses with professionals on major Universities on campus. And these campus professionals and students on campuses have been in touch with us telling us about problems they’ve been having on various campuses. That includes primarily intimidation, harassment of and intimidation against Jewish students.

This has included such episodes as major conferences on campuses that have been established and run by Muslim student organizations where speakers have compared Israelis to Nazis, have called for Israel’s destruction… Claiming the Jewish State has no right to exist.
And Jewish students have informed us, as well as our campus professionals, that especially at these Jewish conferences they have been called names, even been spit on, and [made] fearful of wearing Jewish stars or traditional headset for fear of being harassed.

Jewish students at various major universities —when they take courses on the middle east– professors have been hostile towards Israel. When they try to defend Israel against these outrageous attacks, professors have strongly condemned Jewish students, called them names, with no support from the administration after they filed formal complaints against harassment by students and professors. Among the most egregious Universities include, University of California at Irvine, Columbia University, University of Santa Cruz, and Northeastern University, Boston, and many others. The most recent we filed with a complaint was University of Illinois. First we complain and then we forget. Also Rutgers University has been awful.

Very simply, instead of specifically and only attacking Jews, they attack the Jewish State which is filled with Jews. They hide behind hating Israel, to say we are not against Jews. We are against Israel’s existence. If I’d have told you I am against Italy’s existence, would you not think I was against Italians?

You never have attacks against the truly vicious entities like … Hamas… They hide behind the hating of Israel, and that is not against Jews? But they are.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, when you are talking anti-Zionism, you’re talking anti-Semitism. That does not mean people cannot criticism Israel. To say they are saying Israel is Nazism, you are allowing the criticism to become obscene. And when you never criticize the enemies of Israel, you know then it is anti-Semitism.
 
  1. 4.      Returning to the subject of Israel, speak to us some about why an American who is Jewish and either observes the religion or not would find Israel important in their life. The subject is certainly one that holds different viewpoints, even among Jews of various persuasion and faith. As the final part of this question, how are young people working in their lives or practicing a sense of their faith, and in this instance Zionism or the importance of Israel in their lives?
You do not have to be an observant Jew to like Israel. Most of the favorable organizations are secular. Surveys have shown, the more you follow Judaism’s precepts, the more you follow the Torah, that your commitment or concern for Israel is greater. Most of the Jews in America are secular and find Israel important in their lives.  Virtually all the Jewish organizations are secular, as is our own. We respect Orthodox Jews, but 90 percent of my Board is secular. Their [Board’s] commitment to Israel is powerful.

Even secular Jews identify with their co-religionist just as the Irish identify with the Irish problems, just as the Hispanics are concerned about their Mexico. They are concerned about their brothers and sisters. It is a natural affinity for people to feel for their same nationality or ethnicity.

Blacks identified with Obama, for he has a similar ethnic background. It is a natural human trait. Most Jews, and most secular Jews, remember their parents Shabbat, or had Hanukah favors. They remember this kinship that has them identify with Israel because of the birthright program which sends any Jewish younger between 18 and 25 to Israel all expenses paid. This is underwritten by Sheldon Adelson who’s given the Birthright program over $100 million dollars to send young people to visit Israel. Charles Bronfman is one of two of the major supporters of Birthright. The connection to the Jewish State is in every Jews heart.

Promotion video shows Birthright Program: Designed for use with iPhone

This is a video I shot and edited for a subsidiary program of the organization “Birthright” that enables young Jews from America to tour Israel for free, for 10 days.

  1. 5.      We are at the end of our phone conversation as interview. At this time, if there is anything you want to add, or say, please do so. This Religion Writer knows he has not covered the full territory of the subject, nor have we done more than introduce readers to some of the policies, informational matters, history, and reason to be for the State of Israel. But most significantly, we have discussed through your remarks more about the public issue of bullying Jewish students on University campuses and at other levels of schooling.
Some of the things ZOA does on campus are educate College Students about the Arab War against Israel. I say Arab War against Israel, because Palestinian Statehood was really the issue, they could have had a State in 1937–the British Peel offered the Arabs a State on the disputed land. The Arabs said no.
In 1948 the United Nations offered the Arabs 50 percent of the land. The Arabs said no. From 1948 to 1967 when the Arabs controlled all of Gaza they could have established a State at that time. But they didn’t. In 1967 when Israel captured all of the West Bank, all of Gaza, half of Jerusalem, they offered virtually all of back to the Arabs for a peace treaty. The Arabs said No.
But Israeli Prime Ministers offered 98% of the disputed land, but the Arabs said No. Most recently Israel’s current Prime Minister said we have to negotiate the borders, we must establish this. The Arabs won’t come to the table. They want to destroy Israel. We teach this to college students.
They are shocked to find it out. It has always been destruction of the Jewish State, not the establishment of an Arab State. This has aided students in having sympathy for the Jewish State. Another thing we teach them is Arabs in their schools, their homes, and their sermons teach hatred against the Jewish State. There is no interest in peace by Palestinian Arabs when they see that Arabs are teaching hate in schools, media and sermons that there is no peace in their practice. We are very precise about what is said in their sermons and classrooms when we teach this.
 
mklein@zoa.org
 
 
The Birthright Israel Documentary



Uploaded by Justin Kanner on Dec 24, 2010
Watch our documentary “40 Stories” about our trip to Israel where over 40 random Jewish mid 20 somethings from all over the country met up in New York to travel Israel for 10 days.
My friend Jon, who I met on this trip, and I spent an entire summer traveling around to shoot these interviews with all of the friends we made in Israel, and put it together into something we think our viewers might like.
We did not do this for birthright. We did this for us… and for you. We didn’t get paid, we weren’t asked to make it… We had an amazing time and wanted to share it with everyone.
If you’re a Jew, watch this documentary, and if you haven’t already, go to Israel!
 
ADDENDUM I
The kind of response received from University of Illinois, exemplifies one response to a complaint from Zionist Organization of America:

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Urbana-Champaign • Chicago • Springfield



Office of the President
364 Henry Administration Building
506 South Wright Street
Urbana, IL 61801-3689

Robert A. Easter
President


October 31, 2012



Zionist Organization of America
Jacob and Libby Goodman ZOA House
4 East 34th Street
New York, N.Y.  10016

Dear Mr. Klein and Ms. Tuchman:

We have received your letter dated October 3, 2012.  We regret that you were disappointed by the University’s response to your initial letter.  Once again let me reiterate, on behalf of Chancellor Phyllis Wise, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Renee Romano, Dean of Students Ken Ballom, and our entire staff, the University of Illinois is dedicated to creating and maintaining a community that is welcoming to and respectful of all students, faculty, staff, and visitors.

Let me provide you with some additional information regarding some of the many ways in which the University strives to foster an inclusive and diverse community.  As noted in our previous response, new students participate in college-based University I 01 courses, which address such topics as diversity, tolerance, stereotypes, and hate speech.  Although the University 101 courses may not specifically identify anti-Semitism  in the context of discussing these issues, we believe that the courses provide an excellent means of introducing new students to important principles underlying our University community, including appreciating the experiences and backgrounds
of others, being open to different viewpoints, and communicating  respectfully even when we
disagree.

During the spring semester, all first year and transfer students are required to participate in
!-Connect  Diversity & Inclusion Workshops, which are held in residence halls and classrooms across the campus.  These workshops use collaborative exercises to address a wide-range of issues, including religious diversity and tolerance.  Student facilitators conduct engaging discussions that focus on developing intercultural communication skills and building an inclusive campus for all students.  One scenario within the workshop, for example, concerns the responsibility of student organizations to be cognizant.ofreligious holidays and observances in creating their pro’gra  itig calendars.                              ·                                                                          ··        ·                       · ·                             ·






Urbana • (217) 333-3070 • Fax (217) 333-3072 • E-Mail: reaster@uillinois.ed u
Chicago • 1737 West Polk Street  • Chicago, Illinois 60612-7228 • (312) 413-9097


This year, the campus is again participating in the President’s Interfaith and Community Service Campus Challenge.  As part of this partnership, the Division of Student Affairs has worked closely with the Religious Workers Association, including the Illini Hillel/Cohen Center for Jewish Life, to develop programming to promote interfaith dialogue and collaboration.  During the Spring 2013 semester, Student Affairs is partnering with Illini Hillel to offer a “Freedom Seder” to connect the Jewish Passover with today’s social justice issues.

The University further demonstrates its commitment to cultivating a community that welcomes, celebrates, and respects diversity through the Inclusive Illinois initiative.  This program encourages individuals and campus organizations or units to demonstrate their commitment to “advocate for an accessible, safe, and respectful environment” and “acknowledge  and respect the multiple identities in each individual.”  See http://www.inclusiveillinois.illinois.edw’makeyourcommitment.html.
Each year, the campus publishes an impact report detailing the programs and events sponsored by diverse campus units and student organizations.  The most recent report, which highlights the
March 2012 Torah Dedication oflllini Chabad, is available at http://www.inclusiveillinois.illinois.edullmpactReports.html.

In addition to the University’s systemic efforts to create and maintain an inclusive environment, the University has also undertaken specific steps to make the campus more welcoming to Jewish students.  More than five years ago, the University’s Dining Services began serving hot kosher meals at dinner in the Lincoln Avenue Residences.  The University has worked closely with the Chicago Rabbinical Council on kosher product supervision.  Dining Services offers a variety of frozen and refrigerated kosher items in its retail outlets throughout campus.  Finally, the Dining Services Eatsmart system, which provides nutritional information for foods served in different dining venues on campus, allows users to apply preferences to determine which items in a particular dining hall are kosher.  In addition to being advertised on University Housing
websites, Illini Chabad and Illini Hillel also highlight the kosher meal offerings at the University
on their own websites.

Let me now address specific questions raised in your letter.  Regarding the installation on the Quad of the Urbana campus by the Students for !Justice in Palestine (“SJP”) regstered student organization, based on our investigation, the University is not storing the installation.  As mentioned in our previous response, a policy addressing “Outdoor Structure and Display Policy” has been drafted for inclusion in the Campus Administrative Manual.  Because the policy is still under deliberation,  we are not in a position to share the draft policy at this time.  Once the policy has been finalized, we would be in a better position to provide you with the final policy.

There are numerous policies and procedures that govern the use ofUniversity facilities, the scheduling of events in such facilities, and the advertisement of such events.  The use of University and campus facilities is addressed both in the Campus Administrative Manual, http://cam.illinois.edw’viiiNIII-l.htm, and in the Student Code, http://admin.illinois.edu/policy/code/article2partS  2-SOl.html.  The Office of the Registrar, http://www.fms.illinois.edu/events/eventplanningguide/, and the Office of Facility Management and Scheduling, http://cam.illinois.edu/vN-C-9.htm, also provide guidance regarding scheduling events on the Urbana-Champaign campus.  Regarding the standards for publication of events in College of


Liberal Arts & Sciences (“LAS”) publications, we refer you to the following Publication Policy for the LAS Chalk, a weekly email newsletter distributed to every undergraduate LAS student, which is available at http://www.las.illinois.edu/students/laschalk/policy/.

Your request that the University undertake a “comprehensive review of university course descriptions and course materials” is not feasible.  In Academic Year 2010-2011 alone, there were 15,901 class sections offered and the amount of classes offered differ from year to year.
However, the Office of the Provost has procedures governing the proposal of new courses, which are available at http://provost.illinois.edu/programs/cps/proposingcourses.html. In addition, the College of LAS has a process for approving courses, which is available at http://www.las.illinois.edu/faculty/curriculal. Also, the dep1l.rtment or unit has responsibility for approving certain aspects of new course offerings.  Faculty’s role in reviewing suggested courses is critical to ensuring the scholarly integrity of the educational offerings.

We appreciate your concerns regarding these very important issues.  As demonstrated  by the extensive programs set forth in this letter, the University takes very seriously its responsibility to create and maintain an environment that does not tolerate invidious discrimination  or harassment.

Sincerely,
ftD-,L
Robert A. Easter


ADDENDUM II
This particular complaint against Rutgers is apparently a major work on the part of Zionist Organization of America. Rutgers has reputedly been one university in the United States that has a problem with bullying Jewish students on campus. This effort for redress of the alleged problem is based on the use of the Title VI section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Religion Writer notes as a reminder that the interpretation that allows such redress by the Title VI part of the 1964 Act is based on the assumption that in the eyes of the Federal Law Jews are a race.



ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA







July 20, 2011

BY FAX ([6461 428-3843) AND E-MAIL

Mr. Timothy  Blanchard
Regional Director
Office for Civil Rights, New York Office
U.S. Department of Education
32 Old Slip, 26th Floor
New York, NY  10005-2500

Dear Mr. Blanchard:

We write on behalf of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) 1 to complain about the harassment, intimidation  and discrimination  that Jewish students are being subjected to at Rutgers, The State University ofNew Jersey, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.  The ZOA has received troubling reports from Jewish students at Rutgers that the campus environment has become increasingly hostile and anti-Semitic, with serious and intolerable results:  Jewish students have been threatened and intimidated, their emotional well-being has suffered, and their ability to participate in and benefit from Rutgers' programs and activities has been impaired.  The problems that Jewish students have been facing are described in detail below.

Before filing this complaint, the ZOA sent two letters to Rutgers President Richard L. McCormick-the first dated April6, 2011, and the second dated June 21, 2011- describing the problems reported to us and urging Rutgers to take the necessary steps to eliminate the hostile environment for Jewish students and ensure that it does not recur, as required by Title VI. President McCormick responded to both letters, in essence conveying that no such steps were needed or required.  The ZOA strongly disagrees, as do the Jewish students with whom we are working.  We write now to ensure that Rutgers starts living up to its obligations under Title VI and provides a campus environment that is physically and emotionally safe for Jewish students and conducive to learning.




1 Founded in 1897, the ZOA is the oldest and one of the largest pro-Israel organizations in the United States.  Under the leadership of such illustrious presidents as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba
Hillel Silver, the ZOA has been on the front lines of Jewish activism.   With a national membership  of over 30,000, chapters throughout  the United States, and an office in Israel, the ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations; educate  the public, elected officials and the media about the truth of the Arab war against Israel; and combat anti­ Israel and anti-Jewish bias in the media, textbooks and on campus.


A Jewish Student Has Been Physically Threatened  And Intimidated
By Other Students And Even By A Rutgers Official

A Jewish student - who will be referred to here as "John Doe" - is one of several Jewish students who have been subjected to a hostile anti-Semitic environment at Rutgers.  John Doe, who just completed his junior year, is a columnist for the student paper called the Targum, for which he writes on a variety of topics, including Israel when it is relevant to happenings at Rutgers.  Simply for exercising his right to free expression in the paper, John Doe has been subjected to ugly anti-Semitic name-calling and other hateful comments, and to physical threats by other students and even by a university official.

On January 31, 2011, the Targum published John Doe's opinion piece entitled "BAKA Must End Hateful Tactics."  In the piece, John Doe criticized BAKA, an anti-Israel student group on campus, for hosting an event called "Never Again for Anyone," in which Israelis were absurdly and offensively compared to Nazis.  After the piece was published, another student at Rutgers posted a message on Facebook in which he directly threatened the Jewish student John Doe with violence:  "As I was reading the [John Doe] column  this morning, I realized  how Im [sic] a pretty angry  person. Id [sic] be happy  to see him beat with a crowbar. Violence doesnt  [sic] solve problems but  it shuts up people who shouldnt [sic] speak” [emphasis added].

At least seven of the writer’s Facebook friends clicked “like” on this message, indicating their approval of the murderous threat against John Doe.  One responded with a chilling threat of his own:  ”Or  makes them  martyrs, furthering the strength behind their  beliefs.  And skinning them alive so they see the afterlife” [emphasis added].

Understandably feeling afraid for his physical safety, John Doe sought police protection and removed his contact information from the Rutgers directory, which is normally accessible to the public.  John Doe also filed a bias incident report with the Dean of Students.  Rutgers represents that victims of bias will be contacted within 24 hours of filing a bias report.  But not a single administrator reached out to John Doe for more than a month.  John Doe eventually received a cursory e-mail from the Dean of Students of the College Avenue Campus, informing him that there were insufficient grounds to formally charge the student who threatened him. According to the dean, the student who made the murderous threat was simply given “a warning.”

Threats ofviolence are actionable under the law.  Rutgers’ Code of Conduct also specifically prohibits threatening to use force against a person.  It is considered to be such a severe infraction that the violator can be suspended or even expelled.  It is impossible to understand what more Rutgers could possibly have needed to determine that a student had in fact threatened to use force against John Doe.  And it is shocking that the student who threatened to use a crowbar to silence the Jewish student John Doe was simply given a slap on the wrist and issued a warning.  Equally shocking is that the university failed to discipline the student who threatened to skin the Jewish student John Doe alive.  These were clear and unequivocal threats


against a Jewish Rutgers student, violating the university’s Code of Conduct, yet Rutgers did virtually nothing in response.

Rutgers has also failed to respond appropriately to the threats, bullying and intimidation that John Doe has been subjected to by a university official.  After John Doe wrote an opinion piece in the Targum criticizing the student government’s decision to financially support the Palestine Children’s  Relief Fund- which he had every right to do- Shehnaz Sheik Abdeljaber, the Outreach Coordinator for Rutgers’ Center for Middle East Studies, posted offensive anti­ Semitic comments about John Doe on Facebook.  She referred to the Jewish student John Doe as that racist Zionist pig!!!!!!!!(emphasis added).  And she tried to incite other Facebook users against John Doe, encouraging them to “Put his name in fb [Facebook] search … he has a fb [Facebook] hate page”– as if celebrating that people were posting hateful messages about John Doe and urging others to find that Facebook page so that they could read the comment and post their own hateful messages.

Ms. Abdeljaber also physically threatened and tried to provoke a physical fight with John Doe.  In November 2009, there was a student body meeting about whether the student government should financially support the Palestine Children’s  Relief Fund.  After the meeting, John Doe and a group of his friends were talking to a reporter from the Targum.  All of a sudden, Ms. Abdeljaber rushed toward them.  Directing her comments to the Jewish student John Doe,
she yelled such words as, “I’m Palestinian.  Do you want to take me on?  Do you want to fight? I have thick blood.  Try me.”  Students reported to us that Ms. Abdeljaber was all riled up; she kept pounding on her chest and pointing to her necklace, which was a silhouette of Israel covered by the Palestinian flag.

John Doe and his friends were stunned.  They did not know then the attacker was a university official.  They urged Ms. Abdeljaber to calm down, to no avaiL  Eventually, a university official called the police to diffuse the situation.

Ironically, Ms. Abdeljaber was quoted in the Targum last February, condemning bullying, including when it is carried out through the misuse of language.  While purporting to take bullying seriously, Rutgers has ignored Ms. Abdeljaber’s threatening and anti-Semitic conduct toward John Doe.  Ms. Abdeljaber is still identified on Rutgers ‘ Web site as the Outreach Coordinator for the Middle East Studies Center.  On information and belief, the
university has never investigated her conduct.  If it has, the investigation was not a thorough one,
since John Doe was the victim of her bullying and intimidation, and yet he was never contacted by the university regarding what he was subjected· to.

After the ZOA wrote to President McCormick about Ms. Abdeljaber’s misconduct, he responded:  ”As you are well aware, inappropriate  language does not automatically constitute a breach oflaw or of university policy, nor does an individual’s private conduct necessarily constitute a breach of professional responsibility.” The ZOA finds President McCormick’s response shocking and unacceptable.  If a student wrote an opinion piece in the student paper in favor of gay marriage, the Rutgers administration would never tolerate for one second a university official posting a Facebook message targeting that student and referring to him as


“that faggot pig!!!!!!!l” or engaging in some other hateful and bigoted name-calling.  Likewise, Rutgers would never tolerate a university official referring to an African American student as “that black pig” or a Hispanic student as “that Hispanic pig.”  Nor should it.

It is unacceptable that Rutgers would excuse, justifY and ignore the conduct of a university official who engaged in anti-Semitic name-calling and who actually physically threatened a Jewish student- as the “Outreach” Coordinator of the Middle East Studies Center, no less! What Jewish or pro-Israel student could ever feel safe and comfortable taking a course in Middle East studies, or working with Shehnaz Sheik Abdeljaber, when she has shown such reprehensible hatred toward Israel and Jews?

An Admissions Policy To A Campus  Event Was Unfairly Imposed  And
Selectively Enforced  Against Jewish And Pro-Israel Students

Over the past academic year, the anti-Israel student group called BAKA has been sponsoring and promoting campus programs and events on a regular basis that promote anti­ Semitic bigotry and demonize Jews and Israel, creating a hostile environment for Jewish students at Rutgers.  Here are just a few examples:


•              On November 4, 2010, BAKA sponsored a fundraiser called “U.S. to Gaza,” to support breaking Israel’s legal naval blockade of Gaza.  Adam Shapiro, co-founder of a vicious anti-Israel group called the International Solidarity Movement, spoke at the fundraiser, inflaming the audience against Israel by exhorting them to “transform this conflict from one between Israel and the Palestinians … to one between the rest of the world and Israel.”  Another speaker, Nada Khader, encouraged the audience to support a boycott against Israel, reportedly comparing Zionism-the expression of the Jewish people’s right to live in their historic and religious homeland-to white supremacy.  The hostility in the room was unmistakable; every attack against Israel- including the mention of suicide bombings, which have resulted in the murder and maiming of innocent Jewish civilians, and other forms of violence against Israel- was frighteningly greeted with cheering and loud applause.

•    On November 16, 2010, BAKA sponsored a speech by Norman Finkelstein, a well­
known Holocaust minimizer and Israel-basher.


•    On November 19,2010, BAKA sponsored a showing of the film “Occupation  101,” which inflames hatred of Jews and Israel by promoting the incendiary falsehood that the Palestinian Arabs are innocent victims and Israelis their brutal occupiers and oppressors.

•             On December 5, 2010, BAKA co-sponsored a “Palestine Culture Festival” that celebrated the Palestinian “legacy of resistance,”- which is code for the endorsement of suicide
‘bombings, terrorist attacks, and the murder of Israeli Jews.


•    On January 20, 2011, BAKA sponsored a “Gaza vigil” to commemorate the so-called
“massacres” of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, another inflammatory falsehood that incites


hatred of Jews and Israel.  The notion that there were any “massacres” is false; many if not most of the people killed were not innocent civilians but rather operatives for the terrorist group Hamas, whose charter calls for killing Jews and destroying Israel.

•   On March 1, 2011, BAKA sponsored a panel discussion entitled “Israel, the Apartheid Analogy and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement.”  The event incited hatred of Israel by falsely and offensively comparing Israel’s  treatment of its Arab citizens to how South Africa treated blacks under the apartheid system, and it promoted harming Israel by boycotting Israeli products and cultural exchanges.

•              On March 2, 2011, BAKA erected a so-called “apartheid  wall”- falsely representing the security fence that Israel has been forced to construct to protect innocent Israeli civilians from terrorists entering Israel.  BAKA’s wall was set up outside one of the main dining halls on campus, so that it was virtually impossible for students to avoid.  Students residing adjacent to the dining hall were literally forced to walk around the wall in order to exit their dormitory toward College Avenue. These students in particular were unable to escape the wall and its hateful and false propaganda messages about Jews and Israel.

On January 29, 2011, BAKA organized another program entitled ”Never Again for Anyone,” which falsely and outrageously  analogized the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews to Israel’s policies and practices toward the Palestinian Arabs.  When Jewish students heard about this program, they were understandably upset and outraged, and planned a peaceful response.  They would attend the event, sit respectfully, and then at some point, stand up, reveal the tee shirts underneath their jackets -bearing the message, “Don’t Politicize the Holocaust”- and theri quietly walk out.  But most Jewish students were prevented from attending because they were subjected to a selective admissions policy that was discriminatory and anti-Semitic.

BAKA had advertised the event on Facebook and Craigslist, representing that it would be “free and open to the public.”  The Craigslist ad said, “$5 – $20 suggested donation on entry.”  At the event itself, a sign was prominently displayed, suggesting a voluntary contribution of $5.00
to $20.00, but no required admission fee.

But as people began to fill the lobby and so many of them- based on their signs and attire- were Jewish and/or supporters of Israel, the admissions policy was abruptly changed and a mandatory admission fee of$5.00 was announced.  Students and community members objected, pointing to BAKA’s own representations that the event would be free.  BAKA members were handling the logistics of the event, including manning the doors and sign-in lists. Not one BAKA representative ensured that the admissions policy was implemented as represented and that students could gain admittance without paying a mandatory fee.

Making matters worse, the new and sudden admissions policy was not enforced fairly and equally.  BAKA members and others who were deemed friendly to BAKA ‘s cause- by their attire and signs, for example- were observed getting in for free.  An unusually large number of students were given green wristbands and permitted to enter without charge, allegedly because they were “volunteering” at the event.  To several witnesses, there appeared to be an awful lot of


volunteers; handing out the wristbands seemed a ruse to enable some students, but not others, to attend the event without charge.

In contrast, those who were perceived as Jewish and pro-Israel had to pay to be admitted. Many refused to support the event or its organizers and thus were effectively kept out of the event- which was plainly the organizers’ goal.  When some Jewish students saw that members ofBAKA were getting into the event for free, they tried to join BAKA.  Rutgers’ policies are clear that student organizations cannot deny membership on the basis of religion, ancestry, or other category protected by law.  But BAKA refused to admit the Jewish students to their group, thereby keeping them out of the event unless they were willing to pay to get in.

The reason for the change in the admissions policy was crystal clear.  Sara
Kershnar- founder of an outside group, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, which co-sponsored the event- reportedly instructed BAKA students to destroy the signs at the event that indicated that there would be no admission fee.  Reportedly, she said, “We need to start charging because 150 Zionists (code for Jews) just showed up!”  Ms. Kershnar also told the student volunteers to allow anyone who appeared to be a supporter of the program’s agenda into the event for free.  Inside the event, Ms. Kershnar reportedly told the audience, “When  we saw that there were … Zionists (again, code for Jews) outside, we decided to charge.”  In short, Jews and supporters of Israel were deliberately excluded from an event that was supposed to be free and open to everyone.  BAKA endorsed and implemented this discriminatory  and anti-Semitic policy.

The day after “Never Again for Anyone,” Rutgers issued a statement “to correct a number of assertions that have appeared in some published reports of the event.”  Given the timing of the statement, it was obvious that Rutgers had done little if any investigation  into what had occurred on January 29th.  The university stated that it was not the sponsor of the event.  It identified American Muslims for Palestine (another outside group) as having leased a hall from the university and paid the cost of the event.  It stated that the organizers hired two officers to assist with security and crowd control.  The university also noted that “[t]he organizers had originally advertised a suggested donation of five to twenty dollars upon entry.  At the event, the organizers chose to impose a five dollar entrance fee on attendees.”

Rutgers’ statement ignored the fact that BAKA had engaged in false advertising
in violation of university policies, when it advertised the event as free and open to the public, and then later endorsed and implemented an admission fee.  The university’s statement ignored the fact that the admissions policy was selectively enforced against Jews and Israel supporters and thus was discriminatory and anti-Semitic.  And the statement ignored and did not condemn any
of the inflammatory and anti-Semitic falsehoods that were promoted at the event to incite hatred
of Jews and Israel.  Since January 30th, Rutgers has not issued any other statements about what occurred at the event or how it was handled, or even whether the matter is under investigation.
To all appearances, Rutgers has simply pushed the matter under the rug, at the expense of Jewish
students who were already viewing the campus as increasingly hostile to them and to Israel.  The university’s conspicuous indifference to their concerns only served to intensify the climate of hostility.


After “Never Again for Anyone,” several Jewish student leaders tried to work with university officials to address the many problems they were facing.  On February 4, 2011, they met with Gregory Blimling, Vice President for Student Affairs, and Kerri Willson, Director of Student Involvement, to discuss what happened  at the “Never Again for Anyone” event, as well as their general concerns about the hostile campus environment affecting them and other Jewish students.

The meeting was not productive.  Dr. Blimling set the tone for the meeting when

;
he informed the students that he and other university officials had already heard about what had happened on January 29111  he refused to address the issues surrounding the January 29111 event. To the students, this was a shockingly uncaring response; they had come to discuss theirconcerns about how the event had been conducted, and now their concerns were being completely ignored.  When one of the students tried to explain why the campus environment felt so hostile to many Jewish students, Dr. Blimling ignored that, too, and changed the subject. Instead, he brought up the problem of Islamophobia.  He described how Muslims are portrayed on Fox News, and he talked about the objections that were made to building a mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan- none of which had any relevance to the reason for the meeting or to the Jewish students’ own legitimate grievances about the campus climate.  Dr. Blimling also repeatedly brought up the grievances of the BAKA students.  To the Jewish students at the meeting, Dr. Blimling’s comments were insensitive, misguided and irrelevant.  They made the students feel as if they were the aggressors against the BAKA students, and that they had engaged in hostile conduct toward Muslims, when nothing could be further from the truth.

At the meeting, Kerri Willson did not respond any more constructively to Jewish students’ concerns.  One of the students present had previously filed a bias complaint and had been led to believe by Dean Cheryl Clarke of the Bias Prevention and Education Committee that her complaint would be addressed at the February 4th meeting with Ms. Willson.  But when the student tried several times to bring up the circumstances that led her to file a bias complaint, Ms. Willson stopped her each time.  Again, the subject was changed; Ms. Willson repeatedly brought up BAKA’s complaints, suggesting in her tone and manner that the Jewish students were the aggressors and the BAKA students were the victims.  Ms. Willson also referred to a speaker whom Hillel was purportedly bringing to the campus and whom the BAKA students found offensive.  Ms. Willson said that she had assured the BAKA students that this speaker would not be coming to campus.  In fact, neither Hillel nor any other Jewish/pro-Israel  campus group ever had any plan to bring this speaker to Rutgers.  But that is beside the point.  Because to Jewish students, who had been forced to endure one hateful anti-Semitic speaker after the next- all sponsored by BAKA- without one word of condemnation from Ms. Willson or any other Rutgers administrator, it was difficult to believe that Ms. Willson now appeared to be making a judgment about the acceptability of a speaker that Hillel might be considering bringing to the campus.

There was supposed to be follow-up after the meeting on February 4th, but that never happened.  None of the students heard from Dr. Blimling, Ms. Willson, or any other university officials regarding how their concerns would be addressed.  To the ZOA’s knowledge, the university has not resolved any of the bias complaints that Jewish students have filed.  At the end


of the meeting, Dr. Blimling and Ms. Willson committed to organizing a meeting among the Jewish student leadership and the BAKA leadership.  To date, they have not done so.  Last March, Dr. Blimling wrote to the professional leadership of Chabad and Rutgers Hillel about the campus tensions.  He emphasized Rutgers’ commitment to the right to free speech, and also emphasized the need for members of the university community to exercise that right responsibly, without “contempt,  open hostility, or personal attacks.”  But that is exactly the kind of conduct that BAKA engages in, contributing to the hostile environment for Jewish students.  Indeed,
BAKA is so contemptuous  that it reportedly refuses even to meet with the Jewish student groups.

One of the students who had filed a bias report notified Dean Clarke ofthe Bias Prevention and Education Committee that her report had not been addressed at the February 4th meeting, and she reached out to the Dean for help.  None was forthcoming.  When the student suggested that she meet jointly with Dean Clarke and Kerri Willson, Dean Clarke responded
with indifference, essentially ignoring the complaint by saying, “ifkerri [sic] has time.  But if we are not going to cover any new ground, what will be the use.  We will not say anything you will agree with.”  There was no apparent interest or concern in ensuring that a Jewish student’s report ofbias was constructively addressed and resolved.

When the ZOA raised these concerns with President McCormick, he claimed that the university is aware of each complaint filed by students and “and has conducted appropriate investigations.” That is news to those students who never met with an administrator to discuss and resolve their particular complaints and concerns.  President McCormick  also
responded by explaining that Rutgers’  ability to “discipline its students for intolerant statements” is limited by the First Amendment.  But the ZOA had not asked that students be disciplined for “intolerant statements.”  Rutgers’ policies prohibit false advertising and engaging in discriminatory conduct.  The ZOA urged Rutgers to complete a thorough investigation of what occurred at BAKA’s ”Never Again for Anyone” event, and to enforce its own policies by disciplining violators of university policies.

Jewish Students Are Being Subjected To Hostility In The Classroom

Jewish students are also facing harassment and intimidation in the classroom.
They have reported that Middle East studies courses are so unfairly biased against Israel that they are too uncomfortable or intimidated to enroll in these courses.  When they do enroll, they go in expecting that the professor will be biased against Israel -it is simply a question of just how ugly the bias will be.  The anti-Israel bias has made students reluctant and even intimidated to speak up and say that they support Israel, both in and out ofthe classroom.

One Jewish student reported that even when a Middle East studies professor tries to “stay neutral,” the “mob mentality” of the class to viciously attack Israel eventually takes over.  This student thus avoided many Middle East studies courses that he otherwise would have taken.  In this student’s view, the Middle East Studies Center is run more as “a platform for BAKA” than
as an academic department.  Indeed, the Center almost always sponsors BAKA’s events, many
of which are anti-Israel.


Reportedly, almost every event sponsored by the Middle East Studies Center starts with a speech demonizing Israel and deploring the suffering of Palestinian Arabs- even when the event itself has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.  For example, at a Middle East Studies Center event celebrating Arab music, introductory speeches were made by several students describing the oppression of the Palestinian Arabs and their brutal “occupation” by Israel.  Each of these students cited Shehnaz Sheik Abdeljaber- coordinator of the Center- as their inspiration.  While Jewish students are not required to attend such events, there is implicit pressure to do so, because students are typically given extra credit in their Middle East studies courses for attending them.

Rutgers Knows About The Anti-Semitic Hostile Environment
And Its Harmful Impact On Jewish Students

Rutgers has been on notice for many months that there is an anti-Semitic hostile environment on campus, which is having unacceptably harmful effects on students’  physical and emotional well-being.  In a piece published in the Targum on February 7, 2011, the Rutgers Hillel reported that “Jewish students have been threatened with violence, made to feel unsafe in their dorms and sought formal counseling because of physical threats as well as emotional and verbal attacks on them.  This includes individuals who BAK.A has publicly targeted.”

Hillel’s  report is consistent with the information that the ZOA has received from Jewish students.  One student reported that he is afraid to wear anything with the Israel Defense Forces logo on it.  He is even uncomfortable discussing on campus his experience of studying abroad in Israel.  Another student reported not feeling comfortable wearing anything with Hebrew on it, or anything “plainly Jewish.”  Yet another student described a fear of the BAKA protesters, characterizing it as a “constant worry.”  Another student described feeling physically unsafe going to events that BAKA sponsors, and with good reason.  He has been pointed at and surrounded at BAKA events.  When he tried to videotape events so that he could expose the hateful falsehoods that are being promoted on campus about Jews and Israel, BAKA members forced him to leave. Another Jewish student went to a BAKA meeting wearing a kippah (skullcap) and was told to leave.  Students describe being afraid even to say on campus that they support Israel.  One Jewish student said that based on BAKA’s conduct in specifically targeting her, she could not leave her house, and was so riddled with anxiety that she could not eat or sleep.

When the ZOA apprised Rutgers President McCormick of the many problems that Jewish students are facing, we urged him to implement a systemic response, consistent with the Office
for Civil Rights’ Dear Colleague letter of October 26, 2010.  Specifically, the ZOA recommended that President McCormick (1) meet with Jewish students and listen to their concerns; (2) speak out and publicly condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms whenever it occurs at Rutgers, including when anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiment crosses the line into anti­ Semitism, and when lies about Israel are promoted on campus that are inciting hatred of Jews;
(3) investigate Shehnaz Sheik Abdeljaber’s conduct thoroughly and, if the allegations against her
are substantiated, fire her; (4) investigate thoroughly and resolve fairly each and every bias report that Jewish students have made; (5) investigate thoroughly what occurred at the “Never


Again for Anyone” event and determine whether BAKA should be disciplined for violating university policies; (6) undertake a comprehensive review of university course descriptions and course materials to correct the anti-Israel bias that permeates the classroom, which is creating a hostile learning environment for Jewish students; (7) provide faculty and administrators with training to recognize and address anti-Semitic incidents; and (8) create programs to educate students about anti-Semitism in all of its manifestations

Most of these steps were specifically recommended by the Office for Civil Rights in its Dear Colleague letter.  All of the steps are reasonably calculated to eliminate the anti-Semitic hostility at Rutgers and ensure that it does not recur, without impinging on any protected rights. President McCormick has refused to take any of these steps.

We respectfully urge you to investigate the anti-Semitic hostility at Rutgers, which reportedly has been a longstanding problem, and hold the university accountable under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  If you have questions or need additional information, please contact us at (212) 481-1500.  The ZOA would be pleased to provide you with copies of our correspondence with Rutgers, and other evidence in support of our claims. In addition, several current and former Rutgers students are ready and willing to talk to you about their experiences on campus.

Very truly yours,



National President                                                                   Director, Center for Law and Justice




1 Response for “Interview Series: Morton A. Klein tells readers the definition of Zionism”

  1.  by Peter Menkin
    This is a correction-clarification posted by Peter Menkin, Religion Writer:
    The remark was posed by a Methodist Reverend who is also a journalist, as an issue regarding the legal definition used by the Federal Government this matter: I was not aware that the U.S. government has declared Jews to be a race, rather than an ethnic group. Could you point me to the site where you learned of this.  
  2. This is what is posted in the interview-article: This Religion Writer notes as a reminder that the interpretation that allows such redress by the Title VI part of the 1964 Act is based on the assumption that in the eyes of the Federal Law Jews are a race.
    The issue became is it Race or Ethnic origin?
    The Religion Writer Peter Menkin had written in the Addendum: This Religion Writer notes as a reminder that the interpretation that allows such redress by the Title VI part of the 1964 Act is based on the assumption that in the eyes of the Federal Law Jews are a race.
    Ken Marcus of The Brandeis Center who was instrumental in developing a change in the definition of who-is-Jewish for the American Federal Government, and who is today Director of The Brandeis Center and was an employee of The Office for Civil Rights, responded:
  3. As a legal matter, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is worded in terms of “race” or “national origin” rather than “ethnicity.” In legal communications, we tend to speak of “ethnic or ancestral heritage,” because that is the phrase that the U.S. Supreme Court used, in two prominent cases, to address this issue. Technically, the Court was interpeting the word “race,” but we see the legal concepts as “race” and “national origin” as having substantial overlap. The Office for Civil Rights tends to use the term “national origin” rather than “race” in many of its communications, but that does not appear to make a substantive difference in terms of policy.
    It is worth noting Congress and the courts often use terms differently than they are used in common discourse.
    I hope that this is helpful.
    The Director of Civil Rights, Susan Tuchman, Esq., Zionist Organization of America replied similarly: Ken has summarized beautifully the race/national origin connection for purposes of civil rights protections. I just wanted to clarify that the ZOA’s Title VI complaints (against UC Irvine and Rutgers) alleged discrimination based on “race” and “national origin,” as those terms have been construed by the courts – i.e., discrimination based on Jewish students’ shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics.
This entire work appeared originally Church of England Newspaper, London by Peter Menkin. pmenkin@att.net

Sunday, January 06, 2013

Key player Ken Marcus in reporting and acting on Jewish bullying on American campuses

This is one of a series on the Jewish community’s complaint regarding bullying Jewish Students on University Campuses, and the new use of Title VI 1964 Civil Rights action to effect this problem of bullying students on University campuses.



The thing I am thinking is that the Jewish faith has a strong tradition of ethical and moral teachings based on being a people of the Book. This evidences itself in their actions and thought in connection with the subject of bullying Jewish students on American campus and their way to legal redress by Title VI, Civil Rights Act.
Interview and article by Peter Menkin






Kenneth L. Marcus of The Brandeis Center, Washington, D.C.

INTRODUCTION BY THE RELIGION WRITER PETER MENKIN TO THE SERIES
The multi part series I’ve been working on since July, 2012 came to an end in November, 2012. I expect to continue to post this series on the Jewish community’s complaint regarding bullying Jewish Students on University Campuses, and the new use of Title VI 1964 Civil Rights action to effect this problem of bullying students on University campuses. This standpoint of a large if not majority segment of the established Jewish Community in the United States is a report on a given point of view that finds Israel part of this conversation and also the point of view this behavior represents anti-Semitism.

This introduction to the fourth of an going series of six or more interviews, each with Addendum consisting of relevant documents on the matter of bullying Jewish Students and the use of Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964 in finding redress is an indication of the more strident and tense situation regarding bullying Jewish students on American campuses. This interview is the fourth of the series and is held with Kenneth L. Marcus, President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law The conversation via land-line phone from my home office in Mill Valley, California was made to his office in Washington, D.C.by me, Peter Menkin.
… a collection of voices in interview from American Jewish Community regarding the real concern by them of bullying Jewish students on some University campuses plays a significant role in unmasking anti-Israel actions and behavior as anti-Semitism. That is the Jewish Community thesis and argument brought to legal remedy through Federal Law that is the theme of this series. The basis for this kind of hate and anti-Semitism, bad behavior at best and hateful activity at worst, is evident in the practiced belief that Zionism is an evil belief by those whose actions show them as performing the Jewish bullying.
 Post note as reflection on the series so far: The thing I am thinking is that the Jewish faith has a strong tradition of ethical and moral teachings based on being a people of the Book. This evidences itself in their actions and thought in connection with the subject of bullying Jewish students on American campus and their way to legal redress by Title VI, Civil Rights Act.

INTERVIEW WITH KENNETH L. MARCUS


What others say about
Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America
 
“Kenneth L. Marcus is one of the most important new
voices in civil rights policy to come along in many
years. He combines the brilliance of a great lawyer, the
flair of a compelling writer, and the tenacity of a policymaker
who has spent many years battling in the trenches….”
Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights


  1. 1.     You have a background in Civil Rights and your current work is involved with Civil Rights as they relate to the Jewish American Community, in specific, the academic and school life of Jewish students on American campuses. Speak to us some about your own history in developing legal action when it comes to the realities of Jewish bullying on campuses, and the parallel “new” anti-Semitism” towards these students that is framed in anti-Israel argument and activities—especially on campuses. I am hoping you will introduce readers to your work through your answer.
When I first arrived at the Federal Office of education in 2002, the unspoken policy of Civil Rights was it would not extend civil rights protections to Jewish students. The reason was that Federal Civil Rights statutes prohibited discrimination in Federally Funded Education Programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability or membership in certain patriotic youth activities. However, the applicable law strangely enough did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. At the time Office of Civil Rights (OCR) took the position that Jews were only a religious group, and therefore did not enjoy civil rights protection under these laws. When I headed OCR in 2004, I issued a new policy, which provided that Jews, Sikhs, and other groups could enjoy civil rights protection when they suffered ethnic discrimination, even though these groups also share religions. During my time at OCR I don’t believe I was called upon to apply this new rule to the so-called “new” anti-Semitism. However, I have written about this issue extensively since I left public service.
The U.S. Supreme Court in two cases has held that race discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of ethnic or ancestral heritage. In this sense, ethnic discrimination against Jews or Sikhs may be considered to violate the statutory prohibition of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court rather than in deciding whether Jews are a racial group, instead focused on the statutory ways in which the term is used.
There is no question that criticism of Israel, per se, is neither anti-Semitism nor violation of civil rights laws. However there have been many situations in which anti-Jewish animus have mingled with hostility towards Israel. In some cases, criticism of Zionism has been coded language for anti-Jewish sentiment, moreover on many occasions anti-Israel activists have crossed the line into overt anti-Semitism. This is not always illegal, nor should it be. But there are some extreme cases where a hostile environment for Jewish students has formed. Hostile environment is a legal terms;  Some anti-Jewish sentiment is sometimes hate, but in some cases it is not illegal but protected by First Amendment rights.


  1. 2.     In a report published in July, 2012 called, “University of California Jewish Student Campus Climate Fact-Finding Team Report & Recommendations,” many of the issues your Center raises are named and reported on. I’ve attached a copy of the report, available here, also, so you can tell us where there are similarities in your findings, and comment on the report in general. This Religion Writer hopes you will also remark on some of the position of your Center itself on these issues, and tell readers how they may contact you by email.

I founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center to combat anti-Semitism in higher education. The Brandies Center is a nonprofit, organization that is not associated with Brandeis University or other organizations named after Louis D. Brandeis all over the country.
I think it is an excellent report, for quite some time UC President Mark Yudof has said he would respond…  … it is a very balanced report that I think did very well in addressing anti-Semitism at the University of California. The report does a very conscientious job of all of the ways the University of California is an excellent place for Jewish students to study. I myself am an Alumnus of University of California school of law. The report also documents anti-Semitism at the University of California. The report is a system-wide document that writes about many problems at the University of California.

I agree with some of the recommendations of the committee report. I think University of California needs to define anti-Semitism in general. I do not believe they must ban all hate speech for that would be a First Amendment problem. 

One thing I’ve learned if you are working in the field of civil rights and everyone agrees with you, you are not doing the job. We aren’t talking about every criticisms of Israel. There are many that are illogical. We are talking about anti-Jewish activities where anti-Israel conduct or speech  is used as a code or guise of anti-Jewish conduct or speech.

My book, “Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America,” published by Cambridge University Press, 2010 is available through Amazon.com or Cambridge, New York: http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item3779789/?site_locale=en_US  

—I explain [in the document “Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America,” that some forms of anti-Israeli [statements or actions] are anti-Semitic and some aren’t. There are numerous authorities who show how to distinguish the differences. The US Department of Civil Rights has adopted one standard that is useful and authoritative. It is the same as the UC study has found and should be adopted by the UC campus: It is sometimes called the EUMC Working Definition. It provides numerous working examples. Generally speaking our actions may presumptively be considered anti-Semitic when they are based on classic anti-Jewish stereotypes, or when they hold Israel to double standards, or when they hold Jews collectively responsible. Or perceived Israeli wrongdoing.
My website has the EUMC Working Definition under http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

I created the Louis B Brandeis Center because I perceived the situation for Jewish students was getting worse. I did not want to wake up ten years later and find that American campuses were like the French campuses are today, or that French campuses had reached the extent that the Egyptian campuses had reached today.


  1. 3.     Here are two quotes from the report: (1) While many campuses have adopted hate-free campaigns or issued commitments affirming the free and open exchange of ideas while maintaining a civil and supportive community, UC does not have a hate-free policy that allows the campus to prevent well-known bigoted and hate organizations from speaking on campus (aside for time, place, and manner provisions), such as the KKK. UC should push its current harassment and nondiscrimination provisions further, clearly define hate speech in its guidelines, and seek opportunities to prohibit hate speech on campus. The President should request that General Counsel examine opportunities to develop policies that give campus administrators authority to prohibit such activities on campus. The Team recognizes that changes to UC hate speech policies may result in legal challenge, but offer that UC accept the challenge. (2) Jewish students at all campuses were clear that the most pervasive negative issue impacting their daily experiences on campus were intergroup challenges related to political disagreements about the State of Israel and Palestine. Students indicated that while generally the campuses are thriving environments supportive of Jewish student life, fear and intimidation were an annual occurrence around student events such as Palestinian and Israel/Jewish awareness and activism weeks. While sometimes uneasy tension was impactful on all campuses, it should be stressed that not one Jewish student indicated that they perceive the Jewish student community as physically unsafe at UC.  Do you think that this issue is resolvable through legal action such as Civil Rights Title VI, and significantly on what basis do Jewish students qualify for such remedial legal action under the Civil Rights Act? Who is going to do the enforcing, and how where does it start? By the way, I have taken the quotes used in this question out of context.
I agree with the Campus Climate committee that it is important for University of California Universities to strive for hate free campuses. The problem is that the First Amendment prevents public universities from banning some forms of hate. So I think it is proper for the University to discourage hate speech in lots of different ways… If not through outright prohibition.

Title VI doesn’t require or even permit University to ban hate speech. It does require them to prompt and effective action when students are harassed, or when a hostile environment is formed. Unfortunately, some administrators think that the First Amendment gives them an excuse to do nothing when students are subjected to hate speech, or even vandalism. That’s just not the case; there is never an excuse for them to do nothing.




  1. 4.     Thank you for taking time to talk with readers about this important issue of Jewish Bullying on American campuses, one that has been problematic in many respects for resolution. You have talked about your work in the area of Civil Rights. Please add anything that may have been missed or that you want to add at this time.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center website [www.brandeiscenter.com ] ]talks a lot about when it is appropriate to sue and when it is appropriate. We are supportive of administrations that sincerely want to solve these [related problems] … One of our purposes now is to support campuses that want to make their campuses better.

There are lots of different community organizations that are working on this problem. They are local and regional organization like Anti-Defamation League and The American Jewish Committee, The David Project,  Zionist Organization of America, and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. All of these community organizations have important roles. Our niche at the Louis D Brandeis center is our expertise in Civil Rights and Higher Education Law.

Email the Brandeis Center regarding individual persons problems with the issues outlined in this interview: Info@brandeiscenter.com .

We have tried to turn our website, www.brandeiscenter.com into a repository of all kinds of information, scholarship, writing and other material on campus anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. I hope it can be a resource for students, scholars, writers and anyone else who is concerned about this issue.

FROM THE BRANDEIS CENTER WEBSITE: WHO IS KENNETH L. MARCUS

Kenneth L. Marcus is President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and author of the award-winning Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America (New York: Cambridge University Press: 2010).  Marcus founded the Brandeis Center in 2011 to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism in American higher education.  In November 2012, Marcus was named to the Forward 50, the Jewish Daily Forward’s listing of the “American Jews who made the most significant impact on the news in the past year.” The Forward described its 50 honorees as “the new faces of Jewish power,” predicting that “if Marcus has any say in it, we may witness a new era of Jewish advocacy.”  During his public service career, Marcus served as Staff Director at the United States Commission on Civil Rights and was delegated the authority of Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights and Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.  Shortly before his departure from the Civil Rights Commission, the Wall Street Journal observed that “the Commission has rarely been better managed,” and that it “deserves a medal for good governance.”  For his work in government, Marcus was named the first recipient of the Justice and Ethics Award for Outstanding Work in the Field of Civil Rights.  Marcus also serves as Associate Editor of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism and Vice President of the International Association for the Study of Antisemitism.  Marcus previously held the Lillie and Nathan Ackerman Chair in Equality and Justice in America at the City University of New York’s Bernard M. Baruch College School of Public Affairs (2008-2011) and was Chair of the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Legal Task Force.  Before entering public service, Mr. Marcus was a litigation partner in two major law firms, where he conducted complex commercial and constitutional litigation. He publishes frequently in academic journals as well as in more popular venues such as Commentary, The Weekly Standard, and The Christian Science Monitor.  Mr. Marcus is a graduate of Williams College, magna cum laude, and the University of California at Berkeley School of Law.


ADDENDUM I

REPRINT BY PERMISSION BY RESEARCHER-AUTHOR ARYEH WEINBERG ON CURRENT SITUATION IN HIS OPINION AND OBSERVATION

California Campus Conundrum: UC Rejects Both CA Assembly and UC Task-Force Recommendations on Campus Anti-Semitism By Aryeh Weinberg, Institute for Jewish & Community Research September 7, 2012The past month has seen a great deal of activity in California regarding anti-Semitism on college campuses. The University of California Jewish Student Campus Climate Fact-Finding Team issued a report detailing the results of investigatory visits to six UC campuses, including eight recommendations for reform. This report was followed by the passing of California Assembly HR35, recognizing extensive documentation of hostility toward Jewish students over the past decade and urging more decisive action by UC administrators. Neither report is binding and the University of California has stated that it will not support the recommendations.Not surprisingly, the sticking points in both reports are recommendations that the UC believes infringe upon free speech. The UC fact-finding team calls for a “hate-speech free campus policy,” while HR35 urges administrators to ensure no “public resources will be allowed to be used for anti-Semitic or any intolerant agitation.” Concerns over the recommendations are vociferously seconded by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a first amendment legal defense organization with a strong record of litigation against university speech codes and restrictions. Moreover, diversity of opinion within the Jewish student community, as stated in the UC report multiple times, complicates any efforts to protect Jews on campus since it is no secret that some Jewish students may be actively involved in anti-Israel activities that are cited as a primary forum for anti-Semitic expression and intimidation of Jewish students. Some of these Jewish students have spoken out against the findings.Is the UC rejection of key recommendations a loss for advocates of campus reform? In short, no. The recommendations are, in fact, not the most important aspects of either the fact-finding report or HR35. The findings of the UC report are extensive, reasoned and accurate. They detail an underlying sense of isolation and unfair treatment of Jewish concerns on campus while recognizing the diversity of opinion among Jewish students. HR35 recognizes and affirms the most important governmental statements, findings and resolutions, both within the US government and abroad, including Institute for Jewish & Community Research testimony in front of the US Commission on Civil Rights. The most important and valuable contributions from the UC report and Assembly resolution is the affirmation of the problem of campus anti-Semitism as well as recognition of the need for ameliorative action.As much as it may seem to hinder the options available to the Jewish community, bans on “hate-speech” and restrictions on public funding for “any intolerant agitation” are just as likely, if not more, to be wielded against pro-Israel advocates as they would anti-Israel activists. The UC fact-finding team found that the main problems facing Jewish students are a sense of isolation, double standards and more generally, a lack of support from other segments of the campus community. IJCR research offered similar findings in Alone on the Quad, which reported that over 40% of Jewish students are aware of anti-Semitism on their campus but that few non-Jewish students shared their concerns over anti-Jewish bias.In contrast, IJCR research showed that a broad spectrum of student groups shared concerns over anti-Christian bias with Christians and over anti-Muslim bias with Muslims. Jewish students are largely alone on campus in the fight against anti-Semitism. Given this scenario, it is likely that the interpretation of what constitutes “hate-speech” and “intolerant agitation” will reflect the concerns of the majority of students who do not recognize anti-Semitism on campus, rather than the minority of Jewish students who do. In this scenario, as FIRE warns, the group intended to be protected may actually be harmed.The primary problem is not a lack of ability on the part of university administrators, but the reluctance to take a clear stand. The pressure is increasing on administrators to use the many tools already available to them to curtail intolerance and hostility on campuses. The fight against campus anti-Semitism is not about absolute wins, or a quick fix. It is about upholding norms against intolerance and demanding leadership. When the university rejects a recommendation, or even when a legal case is dismissed, these do not represent losses. The goal is to continually ratchet up the pressure on administrators until rejection of anti-Semitism is as second nature to administrators as rejection of racism, sexism and homophobia. Universities do a sufficient job on those fronts with their current structures and, to a certain degree, recommending new policies to combat anti-Semitism validates the excuse that they do not have the capability to confront it now. They certainly do and they should not be let off the hook so easy.
In memory of Dr. Gary A. Tobin z”l. Copyright © 2012 Institute for Jewish and Community Research. All rights reserved

ADDENDUM II

REPRINT BY PERMISSION OF COMMENTARY MAGAZINE OF KENNETH L. MARCUS ARTICLE

Introduction: The following reprint from an article written by Ken Marcus for Commentary magazine appeared September, 2010 and a central point of the piece is that Office of Civil Rights make some important changes in their policy regarding campus bullying of Jewish students. This bullying especially so on University of California at Irvine. The matter is one of redress. The Office of Civil Rights did make the changes requested by Ken Marcus in his article. Redress at UCI has not occurred, though. Further, in a telephone conversation with Ken Marcus, he told this Religion Writer that the article, “A Blind Eye to Campus Anti-Semitism remains relevant and timely today in 2012, two years after the Commentary article by Kenneth L. Marcus.

A Blind Eye to Campus Anti-Semitism?
Kenneth L. Marcus
September 2010

This two paragraph reprint from the article’s beginning granted by Commentary magazine. The full article is found here.

During the first years of the 21st century, the virus of anti-Semitism was unleashed with a
vengeance in Irvine, California. There, on the campus of the University of California at
Irvine, Jewish students were physically and verbally harassed, threatened, shoved,
stalked, and targeted by rock-throwing groups and individuals. Jewish property was
defaced with swastikas, and a Holocaust memorial was vandalized. Signs were posted on
campus showing a Star of David dripping with blood. Jews were chastised for arrogance
by public speakers whose appearance at the institution was subsidized by the university.
They were called “dirty Jew” and “fucking Jew,” told to “go back to Russia” and “burn in
hell,” and heard other students and visitors to the campus urge one another to “slaughter
the Jews.” One Jewish student who wore a pin bearing the flags of the United States and
Israel was told to “take off that pin or we’ll beat your ass.” Another was told, “Jewish
students are the plague of mankind” and “Jews should be finished off in the ovens.”
When complaints were lodged over these incidents, which took place in 2003 and 2004,
the university responded either with relative indifference or with little urgency. But when
the federal government was asked in 2004 to intervene to deal with incidents that its own
investigators had determined to be clear-cut violations of the civil rights of Irvine’s
Jewish students, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights failed to
prosecute a single case. Indeed, it has finally become clear that the current policy of the
office charged with enforcing civil rights at American universities involves treating anti-
Jewish bias as being unworthy of attention—a state of affairs in stark contrast to the
agency’s quite justified alacrity in responding to virtually every other possible case of
discrimination. While one cannot identify the motive for this astonishing double standard
with complete certainty, the justification for it involves an unwillingness to treat Jews as
a distinct group beyond considerations of religious adherence.
Faced with the demand to address anti-Semitic actions verified by its own investigators,
the federal government passed on prosecution because it was unable to define the group
that was the victim of the assault. Washington found itself unable to answer the question
“Who is a Jew?”

The lack of a coherent legal conception of Jewish identity has rendered the Office for
Civil Rights (henceforth, OCR) unable to cope with a resurgence of anti–Semitic
incidents on American college campuses, of which the Irvine situation is enragingly
emblematic. The problem stems from the fact that federal agents have jurisdiction under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act over race and national-origin discrimination—but not
over religion. And because they have been unable to determine whether Jewish
Americans constitute a race or a national-origin group, they found themselves unable to
address the anti-Semitism at UC-Irvine. This confusion has led to enforcement paralysis
as well as explosive confrontations and recriminations within the agency.
_____________
_____________


ADDENDUM III

NOTES FROM A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH LISA ARMONY OF THE ROSE PROJECT, JEWISH FEDERATION OF ORANGE COUNTY


From a Jewish perspective at University California Irvine (UCI) Jewish students do quite well in terms of level of security and confidence. Expresssed concern regarding Arab-Israel conflict and the week long Muslim student event in the past meant Jewish students felt threatened from policy concern to its change to anti-Semitism. Jewish students want the campus to be more forthright in terms of these events.

[The Rose Project has been quite successful in mending and quieting these hostilities and concerns thorugh Jewish Community work with the rest of the Community in the Irvine area and UCI, Lisa Armoni reports.] At UC Irvine, in the past two years the climate has been really calm. There had been a history of hostile climate on campus. Since the afternoon of the Michael Oren incident, it’s calmed down. We’re seeing the tenor of anti-Israel activity has calmed down; it is not as vitriolic…as in the past. We are really seeing some dialogue today, so it is marked improvement from three years ago.  [Note that Kenneth L. Marcus has told this Religion Writer just this latter part of November, 2012, that to date redress for the problems of anti-Semitism and what Lisa Armoni characterized as vitriolic activity, has not been satisfied. In Ken Marcus’ opinion and by the facts he holds, the Civil Rights attorney says that the attitude and practices of the University of California Irvine administration remains the same as before the year 2012. In a sense, this Religion Writer notes two observations: (1) Community work by both the Campus Community and its larger Community can and has in this case calmed the incidences themselves down; (2) The necessity under law as Kenneth Marcus argues for the Administration and University to change their ways of dealing with this issues, ways of allowing hateful speech, and related matters of both action and policy have not changed.
If readers wish to learn more of The Rose Project of Jewish Federation of Orange County in being successful in their work to calm the atmosphere and acts involved in these matters of bullying Jewish Students on campus, or simply reach Lisa Armoni, this is her email: lisa@jffs.org

She says, in that same statement regarding the current situation at UCI, the office of the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor have been much more aware of what’s been going on on campus–of radical anti- Israel activity. The effort behind it has been to delegitimize Israel. That’s been the Rose project.
The Rose project is a division of Jewish Federation in Orange County, a unique project to us established in 2008 because of UCI. The climate has been very hostile to Israel. Our Board consists of key stake holders in Orange County: Jeffrey Margolis, James Weiss, M.D. 

STATEMENT BY THE ROSE PROJECT
The Rose Project of Jewish Federation & Family Services, Orange County emerged from the need for a strong, unified, local initiative to counter uncivil, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic discourse taking place at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). With concern over efforts to delegitimize Israel rising within Southern California’s Jewish community, the Rose Project Leadership Council first convened in 2008 to establish a strategic framework and comprehensive response, with the goals of creating a more respectful campus environment and a robust support network for UCI’s Jewish students.
We engage in open, constructive dialogue with university administrators and provide Jewish students the best Israel education and advocacy training opportunities available. At the same time, we invest heavily in Jewish student life, working with Jewish campus organizations to create a rich environment where students can explore and deepen their Jewish and pro-Israel identities through a wide range of social, political, religious, spiritual and cultural experiences. Finally, we engage the broader community on issues pertaining to Israel in order to create an informed public with a sense of connectedness to the Jewish state.
Together with our regional and national partners, the Rose Project has radically changed campus dynamics in Orange County by developing a vibrant, multi-lateral dialogue among students, university leadership and administrators and community stakeholders.

 


EXCERPT FROM REPORT ON UNIVERSITY OF IRVINE ISSUES REGARDING BULLYING JEWISH STUDENTS, ANTI-SEMITISM, ANTI-ZIONISM ON CAMPUS


TASK FORCE ON ANTI-SEMITISM AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
REPORT


PROBLEM

Over the past several years there have been a growing number of reports from
Jewish and non Jewish students at The University of California, Irvine (UCI)
alleging anti-Semitism on campus and biased treatment by certain University
officials. These allegations are summarized as follows:

1. Jewish students have been subject to physical and verbal harassment
because they are Jewish and support Israel;

2. Hate speech, both direct and symbolic, is directed at Jews by speakers
and demonstrators;

3. An annual week-long event sponsored by the Muslim Student Union is an
anti-Semitic hate fest targeting Israel and Jews using lies and propaganda
dating back to the anti-Semitism of the Middle Ages;

4. Speakers who are pro-Israel and/or those who condemn speakers who
espouse anti-American and anti-Israeli views are subject to disruptive
behavior by Muslim students and their supporters;

5. Jewish students claim they are subject to a hostile class environment by
faculty members who adopt an anti-Israel bias;

6. Materials contained in certain Middle-East Studies courses are biased and
are indicative of a “leftist” orthodoxy that characterizes this area of study;
7. The UCI administration is not responsive to complaints by Jewish
students.

8. Jewish students complain of a “double standard” when the administration
enforces campus rules and regulations.
2

INTRODUCTION

The Task Force on Anti-Semitism at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) was
formed by the Hillel Foundation of Orange County in December 2006.1 The Task
Force charge was to investigate the alleged anti-Semitism at the University.
According to Hillel’s executive Director: “Our Goal is to find out what’s out
there…Clearly there is enough information coming my way that we felt this is an
important step to be taken. ”2

The Task Force members decided to prepare a report with findings and
recommendations at its initial meeting. Hillel was not to exercise editorial control
of the report. In August 2007, Hillel of Orange County stated to the press that it
no longer wished to sponsor the Task Force, because it was “not integral to its
mission.” Given the volume of data and testimony collected, the Task Force
decided that the effort to date was too extensive and would continue with the
process and expand its membership by adding distinguished Jewish and non-
Jewish members of the community.
This Report is intended to present a fair-minded account of the circumstances
surrounding the events at UCI.

METHODOLOGY
The Task Force was broken down into working committees. The Interview
Committee identified prospective interviewees, arranged for, and scheduled
interviews. Interview records were kept, either in transcript form or on tape.
Task Force members attended many events at UCI and in the community and
numerous documents were reviewed and analyzed in preparation of this Report.
The Public Relations Committee handled inquiries and interacted with the press.
The Task Force attempted to interview all participating and interested parties as
reasonably practical. They can be categorized as UCI students, faculty, and
administrators, interested members of the community, including an elected
representative, and leaders of Jewish Organizations. Chancellor Drake was
twice invited to be interviewed. The first letter was sent March 12, 2007. No
response was received to the first inquiry. The second letter was hand-delivered
to the Chancellors Office on May 10, 2007. Invitations to testify were sent to
1 The word anti-Semitism is spelled by some major Jewish organizations “antisemitism.” The
standard dictionary spelling anti-Semitism will be used throughout this report.
2 Michael Miller, “Group to Probe Anti-Semitism,” Daily Pilot, Newport Beach, CA., February 15,
2007. http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2007/02/19/education/dpt-uci16.txt.
3
Vice Chancellor Manuel N. Gomez and Dean of Students, Sally K. Peterson on
May 7, 2007. Both letters were received by the University on May 8, 2007.
University Counsel, Diane Fields Geocaris, responded on June 15, 2007 stating:
“…UC Irvine officials are unable to participate in your investigation. Individuals
who have an affiliation with UC Irvine may choose to participate; however, they
are not authorized to speak on behalf of the University and their comments
should not be taken as the position of the University.” 3 Geocaris further
indicated that “The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is
investigating allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, and that investigation is
still pending. UC Irvine cannot take any action that may, or appears to, interfere
with the federal investigation. Moreover, we believe that these issues should be
determined in an official forum that is required to respect the due process and
privacy rights of all parties and witnesses involved.”4
On September 12, 2007, an invitation letter was sent to the spokesperson for the
Muslim Student Union at UCI. There was no response to that invitation; however,
she made the following statement to the Press when asked about the invitation:
“We think that this is an attempt to shut down free speech and is an intimidation
tactic….” 5
Interviews commenced in February 2007. Approximately 80 hours were spent on
interviews and countless hours of reviewing interviews for inclusion in this report.
In addition, to Task Force members observing programs on campus first hand,
many documents found on the internet and in hard copy, were reviewed both in
preparation for the interviews and in writing this Report.
Almost all of the interviews were electronically taped with the permission of the
interviewee. In those cases where interviewees did not wish to be taped, Task
Force members respected these requests and took hand written notes. In a few
instances individuals who testified did not want their names revealed. The Task
Force redacted all interviewee names in this Report; however, testimony tapes
were retained to support references contained herein.

ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
The following parameters were used to assist in the construct and in the analysis
of data presented herein:
Those who have the privilege of living in the United States enjoy rights of
Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as
further interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Any proscription of
3 Letter from Diane Fields Geocaris, Chief Campus Council, University of California, Irvine, June
15, 2007.
4 Ibid.
5 Joseph Serna, “Tapings OK for UCI talks,” Daily Pilot, Newport Beach, October 19, 2007.
4
speech or an attempt to force anyone to stop speaking as they choose, even if it
is hate speech, is unacceptable.

Presidents and Chancellors of public colleges and universities have an obligation
to establish an environment for education at their institutions; that the values of
that institution in the search for truth should represent the values of our
democratic society such as tolerance for a diversity of opinions and beliefs and
respect for the individual.

Education at colleges and universities takes place both within the classroom and
outside the classroom. Therefore, student affairs administrators and academic
administrators are not bystanders to the education process.
Administrators are also democracy’s guardians of acceptable behavior in the
academy. This includes ensuring civil discourse within the academy.
Administrators must aggressively condemn behaviors, including speech that
threaten an individual’s well being, denigrate an individual’s ethnic, religious, or
racial identity, or blame a religious or ethnic group for criminal activity.
Public colleges and universities are a public trust and therefore must be held
accountable to the public through the Board of Regents and the campus
administration. Citizens can also hold institutions accountable by supporting or
withholding support for the University either through direct contributions and/or
through the support or nonsupport of public funding measures.

Faculties, because of their education and expertise have great license in the
classroom, but that license is not absolute. The statement on academic freedom
written in 1940 by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
remains the defining statement on the subject and is still operative.
Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in
discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to
introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no
relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom
because of religious or other aims of the Institution should be
clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
College and university teachers are citizens, members of a
learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When
they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from
institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in
the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and
educational officers, they should remember that the public may
judge their profession and their institution by their utterances.
Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise
appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of
5
others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not
speaking for the institution.6
Faculty authority is tempered by responsibility. Faculty cannot and should not be
told what to teach in class and students should not be told what to think. But
faculty must be held accountable for a high standard of scholarship. In-class
expression has never been absolutely protected by either professional
organizations or the courts.7 Furthermore, punitive state action can be taken
against faculty over out of class speech “…based on a reasonable prediction that
the speech will cause disruption.”8 Most agree that the classroom and, indeed
the academy as a whole, should be a marketplace of ideas and free of orthodoxy
of any type, except for the standards of human decency that are attendant to a
free and democratic society.
Former President of the AAUP, Sanford H. Kadish, wrote about the theory of the
profession. He noted that the faculty member, because of the nature of the
profession, has certain duties and obligations which are designed to maintain the
integrity of his academic freedom and his autonomy as well as the university’s
autonomy, Basically: (1) The faculty member must be trained in investigation
and reflection, and dedicated to a search for truth; (2) the faculty member’s
views and conclusions must be his/her own; (3) faculty members as an
organized group are barred from identifying with causes or particular views of
what is true or right beyond a procedural commitment to freedom.9
Criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic. Israel like every other country
can and should face public scrutiny for its policies and behavior. But anti-Israel
rhetoric often crosses the line into anti-Semitism, both in tone and in word. This
has been a consistent tactic of the Muslim Student Union and it is anti-Semitic by
any definition.
The new anti-Semitism is anti-Israelism, attacking Israel and
Israelis with the same symbolic fury previously reserved for the
idea of the Jew. Expressed under the veneer of political criticism
and human rights advocacy, Israel has become another caricatured
version of the hated Jew. With this new anti-Semitism, Jews
outside of Israel are also implicated since they advocate for a
6 AAUP, “Academic Freedom and Tenure, 1949 Statement of Principles,”
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm In 1990, several
changes in language were adopted to remove gender-specific references from the original
text.
7 Jesse H. Rosenblum “A Comparison of Judicial and Professional Standards Applied to Faculty
Expression,” Ph.D Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, Md. 1976, p.116.
8 Jeffries v. Harleston , U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,No.953, Docket No. 93-7876,
August Term 1993,Decided April 4, 1995.
9 Sanford H. Kadish, “The Theory of the Profession and its Predicament, “AAUP Bulletin 29
(Summer 1972): pp. 121-123.
6
Jewish state. Those who support Israel are dismissed as tools of
the all powerful Zionists. 10
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights provided a working
definition of anti-Semitism: It gave examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism
manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel, noting, as does the Task Force,
that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be
regarded as anti-Semitic. It noted that taking into account the overall context,
they could include:

  • · Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming
that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • · Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or
demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • · Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g.
claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • · Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • · Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.11
The United States Commission on Civil Rights stated that:
….anti-Israel or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated
that includes traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old
anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation. This has included, for
example, anti-Israel literature that perpetuates the medieval anti-
Semitic blood libel of Jews slaughtering children for ritual purpose,
as well as anti-Zionist propaganda that exploits ancient stereotypes
of Jews as greedy, aggressive, overly powerful, or conspiratorial.
Such propaganda should be distinguished from legitimate discourse
regarding foreign policy. Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less
morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or
anti-Zionism (emphasis added).12
The distinct ties between the Judaism and Israel are entwined by religion,
history, and experience. Former New York University Professor Robert Wolfe
summed up the linkage as follows:
10 Gary A. Tobin, Aryeh Kaufmann Weinberg, Jenna Ferer, The Uncivil University, (Roseville, CA:
Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 2005) p.95.
11 The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (officially established by Council
Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” February 15, 2007).
12Untied State Commission on Civil Rights, “Findings and Recommendations Regarding Campus
Anti-Semitism,” Washington D.C. April 3, 2006,
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/050306FRUSCCRRCAS.pdf.
7
Properly understood, Judaism is first and foremost Judahism.
The word Judaism is derived from the word Judah, which is the
English form of the Hebrew word “Yehudah”. Judah was originally
the name of one of the Hebrew tribes, and because it was the tribe
of David, Judah became the name of the Hebrew kingdom which
David founded. In other words, Judah in ancient times was not the
name of a religion but of a nation state. This nation state occupied
approximately the same territory as the modern nation of Israel,
and its people spoke the same language as modern Israelis,
namely Hebrew. 13
It is offensive to Jews to be told by the Muslim Student Union or by UCI
administration members or faculty that Zionism and Judaism are two separate
concepts or that Zionism is a nineteenth century creation. This is the intellectual
underpinning and frequent justification for the anti-Semitic rhetoric at UCI.
Furthermore, equating Zionism with Racism, or Nazism diminishes and trivializes
the memory of the over 6 million Jews who perished in the holocaust.
Judaism and Zionism cannot be separated. Zionism did not
start in the 1800s and was not founded in Eastern Europe or in
Basel. Zionism was founded by the rivers of Babylon, when the
Jews wept bitterly over their exile and vowed ‘if I forget thee O
Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning!’ Herzl’s book, the
Jewish State, did not invent the idea of Jewish national revival; 3
times a day, Jews beseech G-d ‘that our eyes may behold Your
return to Zion in mercy’. Herzl was simply able to convey this idea
in practical terms, however, the Jewish dream to one day live again
as a free nation in Israel has existed since the beginning of the
accursed exile, by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army. 14
Other definitions and examples of the new anti-Semitism are included in
attachment to this Report.

BACKGROUND
The University of California, Irvine is one of ten campuses of the University of
California. The University is governed by a Board of Regents who appoints the
President and officers of the University of California System.15 The University
faculty is represented by the Academic Senate which exercises direct control of
academic matters, including the authorization, approval and supervision of all
13 Robert Wolfe, “Zionism as Judaism,” Zionism, Judaism and the Jewish People,
http://www.jewishmag.com/89mag/zionism/zionism.htm.
14 Bar Kochba’s posts, “For Zion’s Sake,” The Barnyard,
http://goatsbarnyard.blogspot.com/2007/09/zionism-is-judaism.html
15 University of California, Standing Order 100.4, “Duties of the President of the University”
Amendments up to 2006.
8
courses.16 The ten campuses are headed by Chancellors and each report directly
to the President. 17 The President and the Regents are headquartered in Oakland,
CA some 416 miles from Irvine. “The Chancellor is …the executive head of all
activities on …campus…. The Chancellor shall be responsible for the organization
and operation of the campus, its internal administration, and its discipline ….”18
The position description for the UCI Chancellor position indicates that the
President requires “leadership skills in an academic environment…,” (emphasis
added) as opposed to “administrative skills.”19

UCI has approximately 24,945 students and 16,374 employees. Social Sciences
has the highest undergraduate enrollment with 5,571 students. The largest
major in terms of enrollment is Psychology followed by Political Science.20
The University’s “Principles of Community,” state in part:
UCI is a multicultural community of people from diverse
backgrounds. Our activities, programs, classes, workshops,
lectures, and everyday interactions are enriched by our acceptance
of one another, and we strive to learn from each other in an
atmosphere of positive engagement and mutual respect.
(Emphasis added)
Our legacy for an increasingly multicultural academic
community and for a learning climate free from expressions
of bigotry is drawn from the United States and California
Constitutions and from the charter of the University of California,
which protects diversity and reaffirms our commitment to the
protection of lawful free speech. Affirmation of that freedom
is an effective way of ensuring that acts of bigotry and
abusive behavior will not go unchallenged within the University.
Tolerance, civility and mutual respect for diversity of
background, gender, ethnicity, race, and religion is as
crucial within our campus community as is tolerance,
civility and mutual respect for diversity of political
beliefs, sexual orientation, and physical abilities.
Education and a clear, rational, and vigorous challenge are
16 University of California, Standing Order 105.2, “Duties Powers and Privileges of the Academic
Senate” through March 19, 1971.
17 See University of California Organization Chart, October 3, 2007.
18 University of California, Standing Order 100.6 “Duties of the Chancellors. Through February 19,
1971.
19 Position Description, Chancellor, University of California, Irvine, University of California
Website, http://www.uci.edu/chancellorpositiondescription.shtml, updated, September 25, 2006.
20 Office of Institutional Research, University of California, Irvine, Website, May 9, 2007.
9
positive responses to prejudice and acts of bigotry.
(Emphasis added)21
The University’s policy on academic honesty begins with this preamble:
The University is an institution of learning, research,
and scholarship predicated on the existence of an environment
of honesty and integrity. As members of the academic community,
faculty, students, and administrative officials share responsibility
for maintaining this environment. It is essential that all
members of the academic community subscribe to the ideal
of academic honesty and integrity and accept individual
responsibility for their work. (Emphasis added) Academic
dishonesty is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at the
University of California, Irvine. Cheating, forgery, dishonest conduct
plagiarism, and collusion in dishonest activities erode the
University’s educational, research, and social roles. They devalue
the learning experience and its legitimacy not only for the
perpetrators but for the entire community22

University of California policy goes on to read that the Chancellors “…may
impose discipline for the commission or attempted commission … of the following
types of violations by students… All forms of academic misconduct
including but not limited to cheating, fabrication, plagiarism, or
facilitating academic dishonesty.”(Emphasis added)23 At UCI that authority
has been delegated to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.24

LAST WORD: BY GARY FOUSE’S GROUP IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ON THE UC IRVINE QUESTION
The aim of this Task Force is to study, investigate and issue a report on alleged incidents of racism and anti-Semitism at the University of California – Irvine (UCI). We are not singling out any specific group. We are  currently looking at all instances of alleged anti-Semitic and racist activity on all Orange County Campuses.
This look at UCI issues by The Task force is a more criticial if not radical view and angry view of the issues at the University. Gary Fouse is the group’s spokesman. This Task Force is considered another part of the Jewish Community, and not part of its establishment.
This YouTube from the group’s statement, shows one example of campus speech and is from the Task Force website. It as event occurred around the time in years of the report by Hillel. There is much established opinion in the Orange County Jewish Community that in the six years following the report and this particular event, incidents have cooled considerably:

 

 

1 Response for “Interview series: Key player Ken Marcus in reporting and acting on Jewish bullying on American campuses–a compilation of Civil Rights Act Title VI matters”

avatar gary fouse says:
I should correct one of the above statements which appear under my name. I am an advisory member of the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism, but not it is not “my group”, nor am I the OCITF spokesman.
Gary Fouse
Adjunct teacher
UC Irvine Ext


This work appeared originally Church of England Newspaper, London. To contact the writer: pmenkin@att.net .