The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) is a 501(c)(3)[4]nonprofit organization founded by Kenneth L. Marcus in 2012 with the stated purpose of advancing the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promoting justice for all peoples.[5] LDB is active on American campuses, where it says it combats antisemitism and anti-Zionism.[6][7]
The Board of Directors are Richard Cravatts, Tevi Troy, L. Rachel Lerman, and Adam S. Feuerstein.[3]
LDB Law student chapters
In 2013, LDB established law student chapters at several law schools in the US. The purpose of these chapters is to foster "a new generation of leaders who share LDB's mission" which includes combating antisemitism and anti-Israelism and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in particular.[13][14] BDS is a Palestinian-led movement that calls for comprehensive international boycotts of Israel similar to those that was imposed on South Africa.[15] According to LDB lawyer Danit Sibovits, the chapters seek to "engage law students in civil rights work and engage them in public advocacy" and provide "an opportunity for law students to gain practical legal experience while they are still in school." Speakers may address topics such as Jewish civil rights advocacy, campus antisemitism, international human rights law, Israel legal advocacy, counter-terrorism legal policy.[13]
LDB law students investigate antisemitic incidents, provide pro-bono legal research and advocacy services to victims of discrimination, file legal complaints, and work with university administrators or policies to protect Jewish students.[16]
The Jigsaw Initiative is a program run by LDB that trains a specialized group of law students in using legal tools and skills to combat antisemitism and BDS on college campuses.[19][20] JIGSAW stands for Justice Initiative Guiding Student Activists Worldwide and the JIGSAW Fellows are taught to fight against antisemitic incidents on campus by utilizing university policies, and federal and state law. They are trained to act as mentors to undergraduate students in helping them confront antisemitism on campus and to and understand international law related to BDS.[21]
Antisemitism
LDB definition of antisemitism follows that of the European Monitoring Centre (EUMC) Working Definition of Antisemitism: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."[22]
In March 2013, LDB launched a Campus antisemitism Legal Advocacy Initiative.[23] Specifically, LDB works with faculty and students to investigate incidents, works with administration on procedures and protocols and files legal complaints when necessary and appropriate.
LDB considers adopting a definition of antisemitism to be crucial for universities and government to make clear the boundaries between hateful actions and legitimate behavior. The US State Department provides a definition of antisemitism, but it only is applied for international monitoring.[24] LDB is working with universities and domestic government bodies to adopt a definition of antisemitism. In March 2016, the University of California Board of Regents adopted a Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, which included a contextual statement declaring that, "antisemitism and antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism are forms of discrimination and will not be tolerated at the University of California."[25] LDB had previously issued a letter to the Board of Regents, highlighting incidents at UCLA, Santa Barbara, Davis, Berkeley, and Irvine.[26]
The Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment (BDS) movement against Israel has gained significant momentum in recent years, particularly on college campuses. A report by the Anti-Defamation League alleged that "the strategies used in many BDS campaigns as anti-Semitic".[27] It is in the Brandeis Center's view that the BDS campaign is antisemitic because some of its proponents act out of conscious hostility to the Jewish people; others act from unconscious or tacit disdain for Jews; and still others operate out of a climate of opinion that contains elements that are hostile to Jews and serve as the conduits through whom anti-Jewish tropes and memes are communicated; while all of them work to sustain a movement that attacks the commitment to Israel that is central to the identity of the overwhelming majority of Jewish people. With the rise of the BDS movement, the Brandeis Center has increasingly sought to deal with the antisemitism associated with the movement.[28]
LDB has been involved in numerous lawsuits involving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and campus life. Its critics claim that the organization engages in lawfare on Israel's behalf—lawsuits and threats of lawsuits intended to silence criticism of Israel.[29][30]
Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
LDB is a strong supporter of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a controversial piece of legislation introduced to the US Congress in 2016 which requires the Department of Education to use a specific definition of antisemitism when "reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[31][32]
Advocacy activities
Since its founding, LDB has advocated against antisemitism and the BDS movement.[33]
On February 7, 2013, four pro-Israel Jewish students at Brooklyn College were evicted from an open forum organized by Students for Justice in Palestine. The students alleged that their First Amendment rights had been violated and that they had been targeted because they were Jewish. Three of the four students were represented by LDB as they field a legal complaint against the college. The complaint eventually led to Brooklyn College President Karen L. Gould apologizing to the evicted students.[34][35]
Criticism of Middle East studies (2014)
In 2014, LDB produced a report called The Morass of Middle East Studies which accused federally-funded Middle East studies centers at various colleges to be biased against Israel. LDB claimed that the federal funds provided to 129 international studies and foreign language centers at universities by Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 were therefore being misused.
The report was accompanied by a statement signed by 10 pro-Israel groups,[13] expressing concern over alleged misuse of taxpayer money and arguing that the programs "disseminate anti-American and anti-Israel falsehoods."[36] The statement also called for changes to Title VI which should "[r]equire recipients of Title VI funds to establish grievance procedures to address complaints that programs are not reflecting diverse perspectives and a wide range of views" and "[r]equire the U.S. Department of Education to establish a formal complaint-resolution process similar to that in use to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[37] The statement referenced a study by the AMCHA Initiative which, among other things, claimed that 93% of the mentions of Israel in any event sponsored, or co-sponsored by the UCLA's Middle East studies center, in the period fall 2010 to spring 2013 were critical.[38]
Amy W. Newhall, executive director of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), rejected the groups' statement as "politically motivated attacks on scholars and academic institutions" and as a serious threat to free speech. She also stated that MESA opposes antisemitism and that[36]
... some of the reports issued by partisan political groups based outside academia may actually weaken efforts to combat anti-Semitism by portraying all criticism of Israeli policies as a form of anti-Semitism or as ‘anti-Israel.’ Their real goal seems to be to shut down open discussion of issues of public concern by demonizing academic and other critics of Israel, Zionism, and U.S. policy in the Middle East, in many cases by tarring them with the brush of anti-Semitism. They are even willing to threaten federal funding for university-based Middle East studies centers, which have a long and distinguished history of providing the United States with thousands of people trained in the languages, politics, cultures and histories of this critical region.
UCLA's media relations office stated that the university "remains dedicated to complying with all federal laws and respecting the free and open exchange of ideas representing diverse viewpoints." It also claimed that the centers on UCLA regularly provide programming on Israel.[37]
In response to the criticism from Newhall, Marcus in a letter to the editor of The Chronicle insisted that the groups' goal was not to shut down open discussion, rather the opposite: "accountability systems to ensure that these programs offer the diversity of perspectives that existing law requires. If Professor Newhall's association defends the status quo against diverse perspectives, then it is they who are trying to shut down debate."[39]
Harvard SodaStream controversy (2014)
In April 2014, students at Harvard University raised concerns about the water machines in the dining rooms which had SodaStream labels on them. The company producing the machines had been taken over by SodaStream which maintained a factory in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. A meeting was held with the students and Harvard University Dining Services (HUDS) on April 7, after which HUDS decided to stop buying more machines and to remove the labels on the ones they had.[40] When the decision was reported on in the student newspaper The Harvard Crimson in December, Harvard's President Drew G. Faust said she was not aware of it and requested an investigation.[41] Pro-Israel and Jewish advocacy groups criticized the decision to stop buying from SodaStream, particularly LDB. In a comment, Marcus strongly criticized the decision:[42]
In many ways, these micro-BDS efforts are more dangerous than broader campaigns against the entire country of Israel, because they are sneakier and more deceptive. They target one or two companies, or a short list of Israeli politicians or universities. And they claim that they are not advocating boycotts against the entire Jewish nation. But they are based on the notion that it is okay to apply different standards to Israelis than to the rest of the world's peoples. And they ultimately end up in the same place. All anti-Israel boycotts, whether limited or comprehensive, advance the same agenda, which is to deny Israel normalcy and legitimacy. This is a deeply anti-Semitic campaign and it must be understood as such.
Anti-Semitism Report (2014–2015)
In February 2015, LDB and Trinity College issued an "Anti-Semitism Report,"[43] presenting results from an online survey of American Jewish college students. The survey had a 10–12% response rate, does not claim to be representative, and included 1,157 self-identified Jewish students at 55 campuses nationwide. The report showed that 54% of the students who took part in the online survey reported having experienced or witnessed antisemitism on their campuses during the Spring semester of the last academic year.[44]
Marcus claimed that the findings should have been a wake-up call to college administrators that Jewish students face real problems of bias.[45]
The study was criticized by The Forward which argued that the study documented only a snapshot in time, rather than a trend, because it did not have a representative sample of Jewish college students and because it allowed students to define antisemitism (leaving the term open to impression).[46]
Anti-Muslim Discrimination (2015)
In November 2015, a Muslim student at San Diego State University reported that a man pushed her in a parking garage and grabbed her by her headscarf[47] and told her to "Get out of this country," that she was a terrorist, and that "You people bombed Paris."[48] Following the incident, LDB sent a letter to San Diego State University President Elliot Hirshman and Chief Diversity Officer Aaron I. Bruce, expressing concern over the incident,[49] and urging SDSU to take immediate action in response.[49]
The Milan Chatterjee affair was a controversy on University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) over the President of the Graduate Student Association (GSA), Milan Chatterjee's allocation of funds. In October 2015, Chatterjee claimed that the GSA had a policy requiring "neutrality" on speech relating to "Israel-Palestine" and that groups advocating for boycotts of Israel, such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), would be ineligible for funding.[50] SJP felt unfairly singled out as they advocate for boycotts of Israel. Civil rights groups got involved in the matter on behalf of SJP and Zionist groups on behalf of Chatterjee. The university launched an investigation which found Chatterjee guilty of having violated university policy that requires neutral point of view in allocating funds.[51]
Early on, LDB law students sided with Chatterjee and questioned how the UCLA was addressing the situation.[52] Marcus condemned BDS-activists who tried to have Chatterjee removed from office: "the Milan Chatterjee affair reflects the insidiousness of the anti-Israel movement's new strategy, which is to suppress pro-Israel advocacy and intimidate not only Jewish pro-Israel students but anyone who even remains neutral."[53]
Modern Language Association proposed boycott (2015–2016)
LDB was active in lobbying against the Modern Language Association's proposed academic boycott of Israel. In particular, in 2016, it threatened to sue the organization if a resolution under consideration endorsing such a boycott was passed. The resolution, however, failed with the vote 113–79.[54]
In May 2016, pro-Israeli groups at UC Irvine (UCI) hosted a screening of the film Beneath the Helmet and intended to hold a panel discussion with Israeli soldiers. A group of up to 50 pro-Palestinian students protested the event. Following the event, the protestors were accused of improper conduct and some participants in the film screening said they had been harassed. LDB and other pro-Israel groups acted on behalf of the allegedly harassed students and demanded that UCI investigated the matter. UCI did so, but their investigation cleared the protestors of most of the allegations, except of being too loud.[55]
The campus group that had organized the protest, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), was issued a written warning and required to host an educational program, a punishment LDB thought were too lenient. In particular, one student, Eliana Kopley, claimed to have been chased by protestors and LDB were unhappy with UCI not having investigated that allegation.[56]
In December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) voted to join the academic boycott of Israeli educational institutions. In April 2016, LDB, Eugene Kontorovich and four American studies professors sued ASA, alleging that the boycott was illegal. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2019 when the judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing.[57]
South Carolina antisemitism Awareness Act (2017)
In 2017, LDB endorsed the South Carolinian anti-BDS law H 3643 which would have required colleges to use the 2010 US State Department's definition of antisemitism when investigating alleged civil rights violations. Critics of the bill claimed that it was intended to suppress political speech by smearing it as antisemitism.[58] Marcus, however, rejected that claim and stated that the bill did not restrict free speech.[59] While the bill didn't pass the South Carolina legislature, in 2018, text mirroring the language of the bill was inserted into the 2018–2019 state budget bill which did pass.[60]
Stoughton High School swastika (2017–2018)
On November 22, 2016,[61] a student at Stoughton High School, Massachusetts, created a swastika out of tape on a piece of paper and put it on a recycling bin in the school hallway.[62] A Jewish girl noticed the swastika and asked him to remove it. He did so, and responded, "Well just burn it like they did to the Jews."[63][64]
One teacher addressed the incident in her classroom and another spoke to a student about it. A third, Hilary Moll, having written a letter of recommendation on behalf of the student who created the swastika, contacted the college and withdrew her letter and explaining her reasons why.[65] The information led the college to withdraw their acceptance of him.[61] He was also suspended by the school for six days.[66]
The school subsequently received a complaint from the mother of the student which stated that he felt that he was being bullied by members of faculty for his actions. The complaint mentioned one of the teachers, Jamie Regan, who had asked to have the student removed from her class on the Holocaust where Holocaust survivors would speak.[66] Two of the teachers were reprimanded and Moll were suspended for 20 days without pay.[67][64][68]
LDB lawyers stepped in on the teachers behalf which led to some exchanges between them and the school's superintendent Marguerite Rizzi who defended the decision to discipline the teachers. She cited privacy laws that protects confidential student records from disclosure as a reason as to why the school district couldn't reveal all the details of the case and that the lawyers therefore were only "seeking half a story" and using incorrect information. The LDB lawyers rebuffed that notion.[69]
This led to a lengthy judicial process between LDB and the Stoughton High School. On May 18, 2018, arbitrators determined that the disciplinary action taken against Regan was wrong and that the letter of reprimand should be expunged from her personnel records.[66] On July 19, arbitrators determined that Moll was wrongly suspended without pay, but that the letter of discipline against her should stand.[66][70]
Antisemitic conduct at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (2020–2021)
In response to numerous allegations of antisemitic behavior at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (UIUC), in March 2020, a complaint was filed with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This complaint, on behalf of the Jewish students at the university, was filed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in collaboration with the Jewish United Fund and Hillel International, stating that the events taking place on campus are in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In November 2020, OCR then opened an investigation into the complaint. Following this action, UIUC along with LDB, Hillel International, and the Jewish United Fund put out a "joint statement" pledging to take a number of concrete steps to address antisemitism on its campus and support Jewish students.[71][72]
Among these commitments, they promised to form an “Advisory Council on Jewish and Campus Life” and have just recently announced its establishment.[73] Additionally, within the statement are provisions allowing students to publicly express their Jewish identity, identification with Israel and their belief in Zionism without fear of discrimination or intimidation. The university has pledged to safeguard these rights and more, to ensure the safety of its Jewish students and condemn anyone who threatens antisemitic harassment.[74][75]
Stanford Title VII lawsuit (2021)
The Brandeis Center filed a federal complaint on behalf of Jewish mental health counselors in 2021, alleging anti-Jewish harassment in Stanford University's Counseling & Psychological Services' (CAPS) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) program.[76] The complaint was filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.[77] The Brandeis Center claimed that Stanford University's CAPS DEI program perpetuated a "hostile environment and invidious discrimination" that the program was designed to eliminate.[78] The complaint alleged that the DEI committee declined requests to address antisemitism in their trainings, even in the aftermath of an antisemitic "Zoom-bombing."[79] The lawsuit further asserted that DEI committee members at Stanford University's CAPS division invoked antisemitic stereotypes related to Jewish power and wealth.[80]
Unilever Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit (2022)
The Brandeis Center and co-counsel filed a lawsuit[81] in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on behalf of Avi Zinger, Ben & Jerry’s Israeli licensee, alleging that Unilever violated U.S. and Israeli law when they terminated a 34-year business relationship with Zinger to boycott Israel.[82]
Unilever reached a settlement preventing Ben & Jerry's from boycotting Israel, which granted Avi Zinger the right to sell Ben & Jerry's ice cream in Israel and the West Bank under the company's Hebrew and Arabic names.[83] The legal settlement was announced on June 29, 2022.[84] The Brandeis Center commended the settlement as a "major defeat for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement."[85]
UC Berkeley School of Law lawsuit (2023)
LDB filed a lawsuit against the UC Berkeley School of Law in 2023 over organizations, including but not limited to the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, Queer Caucus, and Women of Berkeley Law, adopting anti-Zionist bylaws.[86] LDB claimed that the anti-Zionist bylaws were antisemitic, but the Northern District of California dismissed the case, the court stating that it was unable to find any harm and that the bylaws were protected political speech.[87]
^"SAY NO TO TRUMP NOMINEE, KENNETH MARCUS". Council on American-Islamic Relations. Retrieved August 22, 2020. An opponent of academic freedom, Marcus has spent years aggressively trying to silence pro-Palestinian professors and students and censor criticism of Israeli policies on U.S.
^Kosmin, Barry; Keysar, Ariela. "Anti-Semitism Report"(PDF). Louis D. Brandeis Cent for Human Rights Under Law. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2015-03-18.
^"In latest exchange, Jewish rights group pushes Stoughton schools on anti-Semitic incidents". Archived from the original on 2018-08-10. Following an investigation, one teacher was suspended without pay for talking to one student and some of her colleagues about the incidents, and for rescinding a college letter of recommendation for the student who made the swastika and telling the school why in vague terms, according to Enterprise coverage at the time. Two other teachers received letters of reprimand for discussing the incident with students and colleagues.
^"In latest exchange, Jewish rights group pushes Stoughton schools on anti-Semitic incidents". Archived from the original on 2018-08-10. Rizzi fired back at the center in her own letter last week, accusing them of only "seeking half of a story" and citing incorrect information. Gross and Vogelstein, in their most recent exchange, rebuffed that notion. ... The pair also questioned Rizzi's reliance on the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act as a reason that the district can't discuss its handling of the incident and decision to punish the teachers. The law protects confidential student records from disclosure.
