54 No. 78 JUSTICE ntroduction: Tearing Up the Old Playbook Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are increasingly open and unabashed in American educational institutions and in civil society generally. Indeed, the level of antisemitic rhetoric and actual violence has increased dramatically after the terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. We saw it happening within 24 hours of the Hamas atrocities, even before the IDF entered Gaza. The problem is magnified because the leadership of all too many institutions employs a double standard when it comes to free speech. These institutions have no problem recognizing and condemning hateful speech that demonizes or denigrates many racial or ethnic minorities, and willingly discipline professors, students, and employees for all kinds of micro-aggressions. But identical hateful speech suddenly becomes fully protected by the First Amendment and invulnerable to challenge when applied to Jews. Schools have detailed conduct regulations that admonish students not to engage in fat shaming, but administrations at these same schools claim they are powerless to address virulent antisemitism and blatantly false anti-Zionist speech. They are consistently indifferent at best, and often actively hostile, to the pain expressed by Jewish students. The pre-October 7 playbook used by the Jewish community to address antisemitism, which severely underestimated the extent of the problem and rarely resorted to litigation to vindicate the rights of Jews, is no longer adequate. We must tear it up. A critical component of the fight is lawfare. Universities, school districts, professional associations and private sector employers are not going to protect Jewish students, faculty, members, or work force unless they face the serious risk of liability for failing to do so. Additionally, U.S. and foreign funders and other enablers of antisemitic activities — both on and off campus, whether they are violently blocking access to synagogues as seen at the Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles, or seeking to implement discriminatory boycott, divestment, and sanctions initiatives as in three Massachusetts towns including Somerville − need to feel the heat.1 That is where my organization, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights, a civil rights law firm, comes in.2 It is impossible in an article of this length to provide a comprehensive road map of our initiatives, but here are some concrete examples of our ongoing efforts.3 Deploying Lawfare to Fight Antisemitism in the United States: New Approaches and Current Developments Richard A. Rosen 1. Aaron Bandler, “Protesters ‘targeted Jewish community’ at Los Angeles synagogue, rabbi says” (Dec. 4, 2025), available at https://www.columbusjewishnews.com/jns/protesters-targeted-jewish-community-at-los-angeles-synagoguerabbi-says/article_57e306f1-c3cd-5155-a804-0060df447dd5.html; “ADL, Brandeis Center Urge Somerville City Officials to Oppose Israel Boycott Ordinance,” available at https://brandeiscenter.com/adl-brandeis-center-urgesomerville-city-officials-to-oppose-israel-boycott-ordinance/ 2. Louis D. Brandeis Ctr. for Hum. Rts. Under L., available at https://brandeiscenter.com 3. Further empirical research to verify these observations will be valuable. For now, however, in my view not enough time has passed since the post-October 7 lawsuits were filed to know whether lawfare is having the desired effect. Most cases are still in progress and it is exceedingly hard to determine whether the settlements reached with defendants are being fully implemented by the institutions involved. In any event, comparisons with earlier pre- October 7 time periods may be essentially uninformative given the increase and change in brazenness of antisemitic conduct across American society. I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=