10 No. 72 JUSTICE activism against the war in Gaza, or against Israeli policy or the Israeli government, is antisemitic or even antiZionist. There are individuals who do not deny Israel’s right to exist as they protest for peace in the region or for the rights of Palestinians. Yet many of this year’s protests exhibit a kind of antisemitism that would not be tolerated if the same kind of “activism” had been directed at other minority groups on college campuses: first, assuming that all Jews think alike, such as holding the same opinion of the conflict and therefore are fair targets of exclusion and harassment; and second, claiming that American Jews cannot distinguish between criticizing the Israeli government, as many Israelis do and have always done, and also supporting the right of the State of Israel to exist as the homeland for the Jewish people. And so, what should and can be done to address the impact of the rise of antisemitism and anti-Zionism in the U.S. on American campuses? Clearly, no single institution, and even the efforts of the entire American academy, can erase the scourge of antisemitism—the oldest form of collective hatred, which waxes and wanes and evolves with great effectiveness. But individual institutions like Brandeis, and the American academy at large, can do things to address the current rise more effectively in Jew hatred on our campuses. Much of it does not take much beyond a willingness to exercise clarity and leadership and buck the political pressures exerted by the extreme segment of protesters. n First, and most obvious, is the equal application of one’s institution’s code of conduct. This would require, of course, a rejection of the claim that freedom of speech – as critical as it is to higher education’s core mission – has no limits, and so protecting the rights, the educational environment, and freedom of expression for all students is vital. n Second, adhering to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects individuals, in this case students on our campuses, from speech and actions that intimidate, harass, or may incite physical violence. Examples include statements like, “from the river to the sea;” “for Jews there is only one solution;” and “there is only one solution, intifada revolution,” all of which cross the line where speech becomes gratuitous speech and does nothing to advance the educational mission of the university. n Third, review and reform one’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: some college and university DEI offices not only exclude Jews from their mission but have also made them the scapegoats for the deep divisions among campus constituencies. They have designated Jews as white, privileged, and therefore linked to the plight of the less fortunate, ignoring both the diversity within the Jewish world and the long history of prejudice against Jews. n Fourth, strengthen the institution’s academic offerings in the history of Zionism and antisemitism, along with providing sophisticated analyses of Israeli society and culture, so that the history of the Jewish people is better understood and shared on campus. This would include holding sessions on antisemitism during new student orientation as part of explaining student rights and responsibilities when they are part of an academic community. n Fifth, as pressure mounts to boycott companies that do business in Israel, institutions should invest time and resources to look more closely at the sources of funding that support the non-peaceful anti-Israeli protests. More specifically, university leaders should stem the flow of funding to organizations and shadow organizations that promote hatred toward Israel and, by extension, to Jews. n And sixth: put limits on, and even ban, student organizations that engage in attacks on Jewish students just as quickly and frequently as administrators would act if any other student group were targets of such behavior. The de-chartering of Students for Justice in Palestine, as Brandeis did in November 2023, is a good example of rejecting hate aimed at Jews. These six “to dos” will of course not eradicate antisemitism or anti-Zionism from American campuses, but collectively they will have a positive impact on the overall campus climate for Jewish and all other students who are interested in getting an education. For Brandeis, a university founded 75 years ago, specifically in response to antisemitism and quotas on Jewish enrollment in leading American colleges and universities, there is, in my view, a responsibility to do more to address the rise of antisemitism. Though, as the university’s founding president Abram Sachar underscored from the start, Brandeis was established as a secular institution, striving to become an institution of academic excellence more like Princeton and Swarthmore than Baylor, Fordham, or Yeshiva University — the latter three all religiously based — it can be both secular and remain true to its founding purpose and values. It should also set an example for higher education in how an institution can ensure the same rights and protection for Jewish students as all other groups. We have introduced programs and initiatives that we hope will do just that.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=