Ed. Dept. civil rights chief, UC Berkeley Law dean assail rising campus antisemitism

CHICAGO — As another academic year begins, and universities face the specter of further division and antisemitism on campus, two prominent attorneys speaking on a panel on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention offered a dire portrait of the state of hate at American universities. 

One of them is the dean of a top law school. The other is the most senior official tasked with implementing civil rights policy at the U.S. Department of Education. 

“I’m a 71-year-old Jewish man. I’ve heard antisemitic things throughout my life. But I’ve never seen the antisemitism on our campuses that’s been there since Oct. 7,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a First Amendment expert and the dean of the University of California Berkeley law school. “My fear is that this isn’t going to get better anytime soon. We all hope that there’s going to be peace in Gaza and the release of all of the hostages, but what’s happened on campuses now is that the pro-Palestinian position has hardened to one that Israel should not exist at all.”

Chemerinsky described an antisemitic incident he faced in April, which garnered national headlines. He hosted an annual dinner at his home for students. Beforehand, some of them shared a flier with a caricature of Chemerinsky holding a blood knife. It read “No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves” — though the dean had never spoken about Israel publicly. At the dinner, a student berated him and his wife about the situation in Gaza and refused to leave.

“There was no basis for them targeting me other than that I was Jewish. I have no doubt that if it was a dean who wasn’t Jewish, they would have never done this,” Chemerinsky said at the event in Chicago, which was hosted by the advocacy group Zioness. “This is, of course, one incident on one campus, but representative of what we have seen so much across the United States.”

Seated on the panel with Chemerinsky was Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights. She leads the unit tasked with investigating whether universities have violated a legal doctrine known as Title VI, which looks at whether their handling of complaints about discrimination and harassment have created a hostile learning environment for students. Campuses put their federal funding at risk if they continue to tolerate antisemitism. 

“We are seeing a quantum of harm that we couldn’t have conceived before, and what we are confirming in the investigations in the office are that these actions happen, and that all too often, our schools are not standing for our kids. Our schools are not making sure that all of our kids understand that they’re welcome, that the schools are for them and that the schools intend to make sure that they are safe and inclusive environments for them,” Lhamon said. “I am very proud to disabuse any of you of the notion that it does not need to to act against hate.”

Lhamon’s office has 145 open investigations looking at schools’ handling of discrimination complaints on the basis of shared ancestry, which includes the targeting of Jewish students. The early results of its investigations, based on the few it has completed, have found that universities generally did not take students’ complaints of harassment seriously enough. (None of its post-Oct. 7 findings have yet determined that any school created a hostile environment, but nearly all of the cases remain open, a result of slow legal processes and chronic understaffing.)

“When we are hearing kids cannot go to class, kids cannot participate in particular parts of the education program because they’re Jewish, because of stereotypes about their their families, their values, who they are, that they are attacked, that they are harassed, that they are subject to notions that they don’t belong, that can rise to the level of a hostile environment,” said Lhamon. 

She and Chemerinsky attempted to offer guidance on the role of free speech in civil rights investigations — does Americans’ right to freedom of speech allow people on college campuses to make antisemitic statements? Yes, it does, they agreed. But that doesn’t mean that simply because speech is legally permissible that colleges have no obligation to address hateful conduct.

“There are instances where there can be a tension between Title VI and the First Amendment, but only if you assume what Title VI does is require punishment of protected speech. It doesn’t,” Chemerinsky clarified. “It requires that schools not be deliberately indifferent, and that’s what too many schools were last year.”

Both Chemerinsky and Lhamon argued that too much attention is paid to definitions of antisemitism, rather than addressing the issue head-on.

“I think we’ve spent too much time in the last year trying to argue over what’s the definition of the antisemitism, and it causes us to lose sight of those things that are so blatantly antisemitic,” said Chemerinsky. “My plea for all of us is perhaps to spend less time arguing over, What’s the right definition of antisemitism, and much more time identifying that which by any definition is antisemitism and threatening and unacceptable, and then to condemn that.” 

Lhamon and her team of attorneys are obligated to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, according to an executive order issued by former President Donald Trump and affirmed by the Biden White House. But she agreed with Chemerinsky’s points that definitions alone are not enough to meaningfully fight antisemitism.

“There’s an executive order that requires my office to use the editorial definition when it is relevant to evaluating intent in discrimination. We comply with the law, and certainly our staff know how to do that,” Lhamon said. “But we know hate. That’s what we do.” 

American Jewish advocacy organizations have mounted a campaign for government agencies, municipalities, companies and universities to adopt the IHRA definition, which outlines examples of modern antisemitism, and has faced some criticism from the left for including forms of anti-Zionism in that list. Lhamon shared that many universities have technically adopted IHRA, but that doesn’t mean they abide by it, or even turn to it for guidance.

“Our files include universities that use the IHRA definition and miss it,” she said. “This question about which definition is right, and which is the best, etc., I think it’s well beside the point, because we have files where somebody says, ‘Well, this doesn’t violate the IHRA definition, so there’s nothing for us to do as a university in response.’ And I’m aghast when I look at that, because the kid deserved better.”

Instead, Lhamon argued, it’s more important to clearly and frequently call out hate.

“I think what we really need to be focused on in this moment where we are seeing this incredible proliferation, this incredible permission structure for hate to proliferate in our communities, we need to recognize hate,” she said. “We need to be clear about that. We need to stand against it, and we need to not be fine tuning any other question.”

Jewish community members outraged by UC-Berkeley chancellor’s approach to anti-Israel protesters

University of California Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ is retiring in just over a month, but nothing about her job is quieting down in her final days. Instead, the English professor is facing blowback from some in the local Jewish community regarding a series of actions she took this week to try to end the school’s Gaza solidarity encampment.

On Tuesday, Christ sent a letter to the “Free Palestine Encampment” outlining an agreement she had reached with the protest leaders in exchange for them ending their encampment. The letter quickly raised eyebrows among Jewish leaders for its concessions to the protesters and language it used around antisemitism. The next day, after the tents were taken down, several dozen pro-Palestine activists occupied a campus building that was not in use. They hung up the Palestinian flag and drew antisemitic graffiti that said “Zionism = Nazism” and equated the Jewish star to the swastika. 

Amid all of the tumult, Christ reached out on Wednesday to the members of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Jewish Life and Campus Climate, a group consisting of Jewish faculty members, students and local leaders, to schedule a meeting for Thursday. The advisory committee had not been consulted in the course of Christ’s negotiations with the anti-Israel protesters, despite several reported instances of antisemitism on campus, one person who was at the meeting told Jewish Insider. 

The person who attended the meeting, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the conversation, said it “went badly,” with “students crying [and] professors angry.” 

“She started the meeting by saying our primary objective was trying to not disrupt the semester, to make sure people continue to study and take their finals. But what about the Jewish students whose lives had been upended by this?” the attendee told JI. “It felt like we were slighted. And then the public statements that she’s made, and the way that we were engaged, was just really a lack of respect.”

In Christ’s Tuesday letter to the encampment leaders, she described their conversations as “quite valuable” and recognized the group’s “efforts to maintain a professional, organized, and productive approach during a very difficult time.” She responded politely to the protesters’ demands while seeming to absolve them of the antisemitic behavior that university officials acknowledge took place. 

She said the university is prohibited from divesting from Israeli businesses by state law, but that she will investigate whether the school’s investments “continue to align with our values.” She also said she opposes academic boycotts, but that she will review the school’s academic partnerships and ensure that none exhibit anti-Palestinian discrimination. (The protesters, in their own public post explaining what happened, call this provision a “pathway to boycott of Israeli university programs on grounds of anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab discrimination,” a charge that a university spokesperson denied.)

Christ’s letter did not refer to any of the protesters’ hardline language targeting Zionists, or instances of antisemitism perpetrated by the activists. She told the encampment leaders that she plans to make a public statement “sharing my personal support for government officials’ efforts to secure an immediate and permanent cease-fire. Such support for the plight of Palestinians, including protest, should not be conflated with hatred or antisemitism.” The letter made no mention of the Israeli hostages, Hamas’ attack, or any Israeli victims of the current conflict. 

Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor for communications, told JI on Thursday that “there’s no doubt that there were individuals in the encampment who engaged in antisemitic expression, and that some of the signs that went up were antisemitic expression.” But, he added, choosing not to engage with the group because of “antisemitic expression emanating from certain individuals” would have “amounted to collective punishment.” 

In another Tuesday letter, to the university’s academic Senate, Christ said she was “greatly relieved that we were able to bring this protest to a peaceful end.” But less than a day later, a group of anti-Israel demonstrators had taken over Anna Head Alumnae Hall. Mogulof insisted that the protesters in the occupied building were not the same ones that Christ had negotiated with. 

“All the information we have [is] we don’t see the same people. We’ve spoken to them and they say we didn’t have anything to do with getting this started,” said Mogulof, who called the incident a “crime scene.” Police were dispatched there on Thursday night. 

The leaders of the encampment took to Instagram to cheer on those who had occupied the building and called on supporters to go defend it from police. Berkeley’s graduate student chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which was also heavily involved in the encampment, expressed a “statement of solidarity” with those at the occupied building, and explicitly condemned Mogulof’s language, calling his separation of the two groups “inaccurate, untrue, and destructive.” 

Christ, who has served as chancellor at Berkeley since 2017, has enjoyed a close relationship with the Bay Area Jewish community for much of that period. The Jewish Community Relations Council of the Bay Area honored her with their “Courageous Leadership Award” at the group’s 2020 gala. 

She faced a different reaction from the group this week. After the Thursday meeting with the Jewish life advisory committee, the JCRC released a statement expressing “no confidence” in Christ’s leadership. “We call on the UC Board of Regents to take swift action amid this leadership vacuum to restore order to campus, and safety for Jewish campus life,” the statement said. 

“She’s retiring at the end of this academic year, so she only has a few weeks left,” JCRC executive director Tyler Gregory told JI. “I think our statement would have been different if she weren’t leaving already.”

Daily Kickoff: The chaos on campus

northwestern negotiations

Jewish leaders slam Northwestern agreement with anti-Israel protesters

After an anti-Israel encampment was erected at Northwestern University last week, the school’s president on Monday reached an agreement with protesters to end the encampment — acceding to several of their demands in the process, which drew strong condemnation from many in the Chicago and national Jewish communities, Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch reports. 

Message received: In a letter to university President Michael Schill, the Jewish United Fund — Chicago’s Jewish federation, which also oversees Northwestern Hillel — excoriated the administrator for embracing “those who flagrantly disrupted Northwestern academics and flouted those policies. The overwhelming majority of your Jewish students, faculty, staff, and alumni feel betrayed. They trusted an institution you lead and considered it home. You have violated that trust,” the letter said. “You certainly heard and acted generously towards those with loud, at times hateful voices. The lack of any reassuring message to our community has also been heard loud and clear.”

Resignation call: The Anti-Defamation League, StandWithUs and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law joined together to call for Schill’s resignation after the agreement was announced. “For days, protestors openly mocked and violated Northwestern’s codes of conduct and policies by erecting an encampment in which they fanned the flames of antisemitism and wreaked havoc on the entire university community,” the groups said in a statement. “Rather than hold them accountable – as he pledged he would – President Schill gave them a seat at the table and normalized their hatred against Jewish students.”

Read the full story here.

Notes from New England: Brown University administrators reached an agreement with encampment organizers to put the issue of divesting from Israel up for a vote when its largest governing body, the Corporation, meets in October.

Share

schumer says

Schumer accuses ICC of ‘long term, anti-Israel bias’ amid Israeli arrest warrant fears

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused the International Criminal Court on Tuesday of a decades-long bias against Israel as it weighs issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials on charges relating to the war in Gaza. Schumer said in an exclusive statement to Jewish Insider’s Emily Jacobs that he has “always had deep concerns about the ICC’s long term, anti-Israel bias. And I am urging the Biden administration to send a very strong stance against possible arrest warrants that the ICC could issue against top Israeli officials.”

Reported charges: Schumer’s statement comes in response to a series of reports in recent days alleging that the ICC is planning to order the arrests of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his war cabinet over their handling of the war in Gaza. The New York Times reported that if the warrants were issued, the officials would be charged with preventing humanitarian aid deliveries into Gaza and with responding too “excessively” to the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks. Senior members of Hamas leadership would also be charged with committing war crimes as part of the case. 

NSC comment: Reached for comment on the probe, a National Security Council spokesperson said in a statement to JI on Monday that, “As we have publicly said many times, the ICC has no jurisdiction in this situation and we do not support its investigation.”

Read the full story here.
 

Johnson’s call: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) called on the Biden administration to join him in urging the ICC not to issue arrest warrants for top Israeli officials on charges relating to the war in Gaza. Johnson said in a statement provided exclusively to JI that it is “disgraceful” that the ICC is “reportedly planning to issue baseless and illegitimate arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials.”

Share

on the hill

House vote on IHRA codification likely to divide Democrats

The House is set to vote today on the Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA), which would codify the Trump administration executive order declaring that antisemitism is a prohibited form of discrimination on college campuses, as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports.

Outlook: The vote is one in a series of moves by House Republicans to respond to escalating anti-Israel protests on college campuses. Even though it has 15 Democratic co-sponsors in the House, the support of more than 30 Jewish organizations, including Democratic Majority for Israel, and strong bipartisan support in the Senate, the bill is likely to see opposition from a significant number of Democrats due to the codification of the IHRA definition, and its examples stating that some criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

Two proposals: Discussion in the run-up to Wednesday’s vote has also appeared to pit the AAA and another bipartisan antisemitism bill, the Countering Antisemitism Act (CAA), against each other, even though major Jewish advocacy groups and some of the bills’ sponsors sponsors see the two bills as complementary, not competing.

Going deeper: Like the AAA, the CAA also endorses and utilizes the IHRA definition, albeit without its examples, and states that it “should be utilized by Federal, State and local agencies.” CAA also has strong bipartisan support in both chambers, as well as the backing of some more liberal-leaning Jewish groups that haven’t endorsed the AAA.

What they’re saying: Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC), the lead House sponsor of the CAA, told JI she’ll vote for the AAA and called on Congress to promptly consider the CAA. “I support passage of H.R. 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require the Department of Education to continue considering the IHRA working definition as it investigates anti-Jewish discrimination and enforces federal civil rights law,” Manning told JI. “Making use of this definition would enhance the Department’s ability to respond to antisemitism on college campuses.”

Read the full story here.

Share

exclusive

House members urge ‘highest possible funding’ for Holocaust education amid campus antisemitism

Amid rising antisemitism on college campuses and around the country, a bipartisan group of 20 House members urged key leaders to provide “the highest possible funding” in 2025 for the Never Again Education Act, which provides funding and resources for Holocaust education efforts through the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports.

Quotable: “The distance in understanding between today’s youth and those who witnessed or survived World War II is widening,” the lawmakers warned in a letter to the leaders of the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the issue. “It is critical to institutionalize education about the events and ideology of the Holocaust before this knowledge is lost to history. Tragically, this reality is closer than we think.”

Drawing connections: The letter points to surveys showing shrinking knowledge of the Holocaust among millennials and members of Gen Z and research suggesting links between inadequate Holocaust education and antisemitic beliefs. It draws a direct line between the encampments and other anti-Israel and antisemitic activity at a growing number of colleges and a lack of education about the Holocaust.

Signatories: The letter was signed by Reps. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Kathy Manning (D-NC), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Mike Bost (R-IL), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Katie Porter (D-CA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Nikema Williams (D-GA), Jared Golden (D-ME), Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Maxwell Frost (D-FL).

Read the full story here.

Share

troop talk

U.S. hasn’t seen moves needed to support Rafah invasion, Lloyd Austin says

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said on Tuesday the U.S. still hasn’t seen the steps it expects from Israel before it can support an Israeli invasion of southern Gaza city of Rafah, the same day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s intentions to conduct operations in the city, Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod reports.

No steps: The U.S. has said for months that it will not support a large-scale operation in Rafah without a plan from Israel to protect civilians from throughout Gaza who are sheltering in Rafah. Austin told members of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that the U.S. has so far not seen steps by Israel to remove those civilians from harm’s way.

But: He did say, however, that the U.S. sees “some signs that they are moving towards that direction,” but “we have not seen a number of things that we believe will have to happen.” He said an Israeli plan must include provisions not only for moving “the preponderance” of civilians, including housing and medical care. Austin also said that “there have been far too many civilian deaths already” and that the U.S. “would want to see things done in a much different way” in Rafah.

Force protection: The defense secretary was pressed on how the U.S. will address attacks — which have reportedly already begun — on U.S. troops assembling and operating a humanitarian aid pier on the Gaza coastline. Austin said that Israel would “do everything possible” to provide security for the mission, a prospect that some Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), suggested they found troublesome, given concerns about Israel’s military operations in Gaza. He also said U.S. troops would have the right to defend themselves, including returning fire from the pier if they are attacked.

Read the full story here.

Elsewhere in Washington: Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) blasted the Biden administration over a report that it’s considering allowing Palestinian refugees from Gaza to the U.S. “Not a single Hamas sympathizer should be let into this country, and I will use every resource at my disposal to ensure this radical Biden policy never sees the light of day,” Scott said, claiming, “We have no clue who is coming into our country.”

Share

Q&A

Ofir Akunis ready to fight antisemitism as Israel’s new consul-general in N.Y.

When Ofir Akunis arrives in the U.S. today to begin his tenure as Israel’s consul-general to New York, he will be, like many of the envoys Jerusalem has sent to the city in recent years, on his first diplomatic posting, but with many years of political experience under his belt. But unlike some of the other Likud politicians sent to the Big Apple, who were popular with the party base but headaches for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for various reasons, Akunis, 50, spent most of his political career being identified closely with the prime minister. He spoke with Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov during Passover, three days before he was set to begin his new role, saying that he will not be cowed by the increasing antisemitism in the city that he will call home in the coming years. 

Wartime challenges: “I feel that I am starting in a historic era, with what is going on in the entire West, not just in the U.S. and New York and college campuses. I spoke and met with almost all of my predecessors, and I think that it is the most challenging time in the last 30 years, if not more, for a consul-general of Israel in New York,” Akunis told JI. “I like challenges. When I’m challenged, I know how to express our stances. Our position is just as Zionists and Israelis. When I resigned from the government, I said I am doing so as a Jew, a Zionist and an Israeli, in that order. Zionism comes from Judaism and being Israeli comes from Zionism. That is how I plan to act – as a proud Jew. I don’t plan to apologize to anyone…certainly not for the chain of events beginning on Oct. 7.”

Campus concerns: “Certainly, the current events require an immediate intervention in what is happening on campuses. I view the incitement and the violence with horror. They are built on antisemitic foundations, not only anti-Israel ones… It’s clear as day that this is organized and funded. We see students who have no idea what they’re talking about when you ask them what ‘from the river to the sea means.’ If you support Hamas and Islamic Jihad, you’re saying you want to destroy Israel and establish a Muslim caliphate instead,” Akunis said. “We have to fight them off, with basic unity with the Jewish communities and groups of Israelis who live there. We have to operate as one body. That is how I plan to act. I feel that this moment requires unity. I visited New York less than a month ago and felt there was unity between the Jewish community establishment and the Israelis on this, and I hope it will be preserved. When we stand united, we will succeed.”

Read the full interview here.

Share

Pic of the Day

Secretary of State Tony Blinken met on Wednesday in Tel Aviv with the families of American-Israelis being held hostage by Hamas terrorists. A statement from the Hostage Families Forum said that Blinken expressed “cautious optimism” about the potential for a deal to secure the release of some of the remaining hostages.

From left: Lee Siegel, the brother of hostage Keith Siegel; Blinken; Aviva Siegel, who was held hostage by Hamas for 51 days; and Elan Siegel, the daughter of Aviva and Keith.

Birthdays

Israeli entrepreneur and software engineer, founder and CEO of Conduit, Israel’s first billion-dollar internet company, Ronen Shilo turns 66…

Progressive political activist, literary and political journalist, Larry Bensky turns 87… Retired national director of the Anti-Defamation League, now national director emeritus, Abraham Henry Foxman turns 84… Assistant professor at Yeshiva University and editor emeritus of Tradition journal, Rabbi Shalom Carmy turns 75… Deborah Chin… Boston area actor, David Alan Ross… Brigadier-general (reserves) and former chief medical officer in the IDF, he was also a member of the Knesset for 10 years, Aryeh Eldad turns 74… Of counsel at D.C.-based Sandler Reiff where he specializes in redistricting law, Jeffrey M. Wice… Former member of the U.S. House of Representatives (D-CO) from 2007 until 2023, Edwin George “Ed” Perlmutter turns 71… Austrian-Israeli singer-songwriter, Timna Brauer turns 63… Real estate entrepreneur, he is a co-founder of the Israeli American Leadership Council (IAC) and supporter of FIDF, Eli Tene turns 61… Member of the board of governors of the Jewish Federation of Greater Rochester, Rina F. Chessin… Member of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David R. Karger turns 57… Israeli judoka, she is a member of the International Olympic Committee and the head of the merchandise division of Paramount Israel, Yael Arad turns 57… Majority leader of the Washington State Senate, he is a co-owner of minor league baseball’s Spokane Indians, Andrew Swire “Andy” Billig turns 56… Senior attorney in the Newark office of Eckert Seamans, Laura E. Fein… Political columnist at New York magazine since 2011, Jonathan Chait turns 52… Radio personality and voice-over artist, Gina Grad turns 46… Attorney and co-founder of I Am a Voter, a nonpartisan civic engagement organization, Mandana Rebecca Dayani turns 42… D.C.-based political reporter, Ben Jacobs turns 40… Senior video journalist covering investigative and national news for the Washington Post, Jonathan Gerberg… Member of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, Marina Tauber turns 38… Operations manager at GrowthSpace, Jenny Feuer… Principal at Forward Global, Omri Rahmil… Photographer and digital media editor at the Jewish Women’s Archive, Hannah Altman turns 29… Sam Zieve-Cohen…

UC Berkeley condemns student antisemitic threats, school says it can’t disclose if it’s disciplining offenders

Days after the posting of a video that showed the dean of the University of California, Berkeley’s law school and his wife clashing with anti-Israel students at their home during what was meant to be a congratulatory graduation dinner, the university’s president condemned the incident as “antisemitic, threatening and not [a reflection of] the values of this university.” 

After the incident, in which a student grabbed a microphone to give an unauthorized speech about the plight of Palestinians at the home of law school Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, some students and local Jewish leaders are left wondering whether UC Berkeley will take disciplinary action, and are calling out the school’s leadership for a lack of transparency. 

“When you don’t take [immediate] action, people have permission to continue escalating their tactics,” Tyler Gregory, CEO of the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council, told Jewish Insider. 

“What we are seeing is inaction on the administration’s part, and we know whenever a student is investigated, it goes into a black box and we don’t learn what happened,” Gregory said. “Are they going to be reprimanded or expelled? That information is not public so there’s no transparency for Jewish students, faculty and community members and that also looks like complete inaction in terms of holding someone accountable.” 

The incident occurred on Tuesday evening, when several third-year law students were invited to attend one of three dinners celebrating their upcoming graduation at the Oakland home of Chemerinsky and his wife, law school professor Catherine Fisk. 

Held in the couple’s garden, the first dinner was disrupted when Malak Afaneh, a Palestinian American law student at the school who serves as co-president of Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine, grabbed a microphone and started giving a speech about Gazans who have been killed amid Israel’s war with Hamas. As Chemerinsky and Fisk pleaded with Afaneh to leave their backyard, and eventually threatened to call the police, she continued calling for the university to divest from corporations with ties to Israel. 

Video footage shows Afaneh stating that it was her First Amendment right to speak at the dinner, to which Chemerinsky, a prominent constitutional rights lawyer and ardent defender of free speech, said, “This is my house. The First Amendment doesn’t apply.” Eventually, after much back and forth, Afaneh and a group of about 10 students left the property.

In a statement about the incident, Chemerinsky said that he was writing “with profound sadness” after the dinner was “disrupted and disturbed” by the student who “stood up with a microphone, stood on the top step in the yard, and began a speech, including about the plight of the Palestinians.”

“Any student who disrupts will be reported to student conduct and a violation of the student conduct code is reported to the [state] Bar,” he added, stating that he planned to go through with the other scheduled dinners. The dinners are an annual tradition for the couple, but security was  present at the remaining two events, on Wednesday and Thursday, for the first time, he said in a statement. 

“I am deeply saddened by these events and take solace that it is just a small number of our students who would behave in such a clearly inappropriate manner,” the law school dean wrote. 

Prior to the dinner, Chemerinsky said there was an “awful poster” spread around social media and school bulletin boards in the law school building that portrayed him holding “a bloody knife and fork, with the words in large letters, ‘No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves.’”

“I never thought I would see such blatant antisemitism, with an image that invokes the horrible antisemitic trope of blood libel and that attacks me for no apparent reason other than I am Jewish,” Chemerinsky wrote in the statement. “Although many complained to me about the posters and how it deeply offended them, I felt that though deeply offensive, they were speech protected by the First Amendment. But I was upset that those in our community had to see this disturbing, antisemitic poster around the law school.” 

Chemerinsky wrote in an Oct. 29 Los Angeles Times op-ed that he has heard on campus “several times that I have been called ‘part of a Zionist conspiracy,’ which echoes antisemitic tropes that have been expressed for centuries,” adding that at 70 years old, “nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now.” 

​​UC President Michael Drake said in a statement on Thursday, “The individuals that targeted this event did so simply because it was hosted by a dean who is Jewish. These actions were antisemitic, threatening, and do not reflect the values of this university.” 

The language differed from university administrators’ condemnation in February, when an antisemitic mob forced the evacuation of Jewish students from an event where an Israel Defense Forces reservist was speaking. At the time, official statements avoided mentioning “antisemitism,” even while three Jewish students were injured and a junior was reportedly called a “dirty Jew” and a Nazi. 

“It’s a great step in the right direction, to address it as what it is,” Daniel Conway, a fourth-year Berkeley student studying environmental economics and policy, told JI. 

“But the larger problem,” continued Conway, who serves as president of Bears for Israel and is a founder of the campus’ chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, “is when you address antisemitism and then let it continue, and don’t take action. This is a critical component, to address antisemitism for what it is. Now it’s up to the university to decide whether they will tolerate antisemitism on campus.” 

Conway described the climate on Berkeley’s campus for Jewish students as “uncomfortable,” adding that the lack of a crackdown from administration makes it “a lot more difficult to be open about my identity… it’s a climate that has been able to manifest itself just because of the lack of addressing antisemitism.” 

In a statement to JI, Dan Mogulof, Berkeley’s assistant vice chancellor for executive communications, did not disclose whether disciplinary action will be taken. “We are prohibited by federal law (FERPA) from offering any comment about student conduct or discipline that can be connected to a particular student or students,” he said. 

Ethan Katz, an associate professor of history and Jewish studies and the director of Berkeley’s Center for Jewish Studies, added that “confidentiality should not lead to any assumptions or conclusions as to whether the administration is taking any disciplinary action.” 

Katz, who heads Berkeley’s antisemitism task force, called the incident at Chemerinsky’s home “just totally unacceptable.” 

Six months after anti-Israel activity began to dominate many college campuses in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks — with minimal action taken by college presidents to quell rising levels of antisemitism — administrators at schools such as Pomona, Columbia and Vanderbilt have taken a harder line in recent weeks. As a result, Jewish leaders are wondering whether these three schools’ tougher responses could represent the leading edge of a trend that takes root across the country.

But JCRC’s Gregory said that in the Bay Area, the potential trend is nowhere to be seen, emphasizing that no local schools have addressed antisemitism in an appropriate fashion.

“We need some stronger signals, if the administration is taking concrete steps. We also still don’t know what happened from the [February] riot,” Gregory said.  

In November, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed a complaint on behalf of Jewish students in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Berkeley campus is a “hotbed of anti-Jewish hostility and harassment.” The lawsuit named Drake, as well as the UC Regents, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ and other officials as defendants. It claimed that since Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack in Israel, antisemitism has been exacerbated at the school — citing several on-campus incidents of intimidation, harassment and physical violence against Jewish students.

The complaint, a copy of which was obtained by JI, detailed several incidents, including a pro-Palestinian rally following Oct. 7 in which a Jewish undergraduate who was draped in an Israeli flag was attacked by two protesters who struck him in the head with a metal water bottle. 

UCB professor Steven Davidoff Solomon, who teaches an undergraduate class on antisemitism in the law, told JI at the time that he’s “not sure why a Jewish student would come to [Berkeley] law school.” 

Conway added that the lack of transparency after the Tuesday night dinner is “not surprising.”

“We’ve seen from previous events this semester that students break policy, and sometimes the law, and even then the university is extremely slow to respond,” he continued. “Every time something like this happens we hope this is the time that something will come from it.” 

University administrators on high alert for Gaza protests at upcoming graduations

At last month’s Honors Convocation at the University of Michigan, one of the first events of the school’s spring graduation festivities, President Santa Ono — dressed in full academic regalia — stepped up to the stage to address the university’s soon-to-be graduates.

Almost immediately, a chorus of boos broke out. Several dozen students rose, holding signs that read “Free Palestine” and “Ceasefire Now.” Ono was at the lectern for less than two minutes before he sat down, unable to continue speaking over the students’ shouting. The ceremony ended abruptly, and early. 

The event highlights the challenge universities face as they prepare for the prospect of anti-Israel protests at university graduations across the country this spring. While the frequency of protests has diminished since last fall, fallout over the Israel-Hamas war continues to roil U.S. campuses. That university administrators have responded to protests that violate campus policies, such as the one at Michigan, with inconsistent enforcement of university codes of conduct raises questions about how they will handle similarly disruptive actions at graduation events. 

Although no protests have been announced yet, some campus activists are already calling on pro-Palestinian supporters to wear keffiyehs and bring Palestinian flags to graduation. But whether graduating students are willing to disrupt graduation ceremonies to make a political statement, as they did at Michigan — and risk being kicked out of the event — remains to be seen. 

“There’s a rich, long tradition of students especially, but sometimes guests, engaging in protests in commencement exercises,” said Mark Rotenberg, vice president for university initiatives and general counsel at Hillel International, which has been advising university administrators about heading off disruptive protests.

Usually, students who want to make a point at graduation do so silently. Often, they write a political message on their cap or turn their backs to object to a particular speaker. Sometimes they hold up signs, such as last year at Howard University, where 12 students silently protested President Joe Biden’s address with posters that said things like, “Biden and [Vice President Kamala] Harris don’t care about Black people.”

Occasionally, they even stage a silent walkout, such as students at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., last year who protested Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who delivered the commencement address. The phenomenon is widespread enough that, in 2014, CNN published an op-ed about “the smarter way to protest college speakers,” after three universities reversed course and changed their commencement speakers to respond to student backlash.

Many schools have not yet named commencement speakers for their 2024 graduations. But so far, it appears that prominent universities are choosing not to tap political or controversial speakers to deliver the commencement address.

“You just see people invite the most bland, noncontroversial, I guess, or non-political speakers out there. People like Donald Trump, or Joe Biden, or other controversial figures don’t really get invited anymore to these events,” said Zach Greenberg, senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Notre Dame students walked out during former Vice President Mike Pence’s speech in 2017. (The White House and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment asking if Biden, Harris, Secretary of State Tony Blinken or other senior administration officials had been invited to deliver any commencement addresses this year.)

There’s also a possibility that graduation speakers — either invited guests or student speakers who were selected by the university — may decide to use the opportunity to make a political point. Recent student speakers at the City University of New York’s law school graduation condemned Zionism in their speeches. The university responded by entirely eliminating student speakers from its official commencement events. (A CUNY spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment about its plans for graduation this year.)

“Many universities will say to the student speakers who are invited to speak at commencement, ‘You’re not supposed to speak about controversial political topics in your speech,’” said Rotenberg, a former general counsel at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Minnesota. “They’ll say that because the intention of the event, the purpose of your being invited to speak, is not to offer your own personal views on politics but to celebrate the graduation of your peers.” That doesn’t mean the students always listen. 

“The real concern,” Rotenberg added, “is that there will be disruptions so that a congressman, for example, can’t give his speech, or an honorary degree recipient cannot receive their degree, because they are tenured at an Israeli institution of higher education, or that other Israelis in attendance will be badgered, harassed or even attacked.” 

In recent months, university enforcement of policies regarding disruptive protests that attempt to shut down speakers has been lackluster and uneven. While speaking at the University of Maryland, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) was shouted down by hecklers who called him “complicit in genocide.” 

“What you saw play out actually was democracy and free speech and academic freedom,” UMD President Darryll Pines, who attended the event and made the decision to shut it down, said later. When asked whether vocal protestors would also be allowed to disrupt the school’s graduation ceremonies, a university spokesperson shared a link to a Monday email from the school’s general counsel outlining UMD’s free expression policy. 

“No person may intentionally and substantially interfere with the lawful freedom of expression of others,” the email said. The spokesperson did not say whether the actions of the students who shouted down Raskin violated the code of conduct, and if similar activities would be tolerated at graduation. 

When reached for comment, several prominent universities directed Jewish Insider to their schools’ codes of conduct. All of them agreed that disruptive protests are not permitted at graduation, although they declined to share specifics about their plans for any potential disruptions, citing security concerns.

“We are well aware there is a possibility of disruption,” said Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor for executive communications at the University of California, Berkeley. “There is a distinct line and difference between nonviolent protest that does not interfere with the rights of others — including the right to participate in and/or attend a graduation ceremony — and impermissible actions that violate the rights of others.” 

The University of Virginia plans to have “designated areas outside the ticketed event space for protest activity to occur during official ceremonies,” a university spokesperson said. Official events and ceremonies are ticketed. “Protest activity must not block access to the event or use amplified sound.”

Graduation ceremonies are usually the biggest events that universities organize each year, and the culmination of students’ experiences on campus. Dignitaries — politicians, trustees, donors, prominent alumni — are in attendance, putting the schools under more intense scrutiny. That’s a big difference from student-run events where security protocols might be unclear, or where administrators may choose not to enforce campus rules.

“They’re not really prepared for addressing heckler’s vetoes and event disruptions,” said FIRE’s Greenberg. “For commencement, it’s a very well-planned large event and universities take great pains to ensure it goes smoothly. So I think because of the preparation, because due to the large police presence there and just the sheer number of people, any disruption to the event, whether it’s the speaker or to the audience, tends to be addressed pretty quickly.” 

Chris Booker, director of media and public relations at The Ohio State University, said the large number of attendees at graduations means “there is always a potential for a disruption. It has always been a part of the university’s standard comprehensive preparedness plan to employ heightened safety, security, and crowd and audience management measures for commencement.” 

Citing new campus policies announced in January to combat antisemitism, a spokesperson for American University asserted that indoor protests are not allowed on campus. “This includes commencement,” said Matthew Bennett, vice president and chief communications officer. “Violations of the directives or other university policies are subject to disciplinary action.”

Stacy Wagner, a University of Colorado Boulder spokesperson, said that “interference, obstruction, or disruption of CU Boulder activity” are violations of the student code of conduct. “Any student found responsible for violating the Student Code of Conduct will be subject to appropriate sanctions.” 

Neither Bennett, Wagner or the other university administrators contacted by JI shared how violations would be handled, and what “disciplinary action” might entail. 

Universities “sometimes are a little squeamish,” Rotenberg pointed out, “about being completely candid about what are the consequences for violating these rules.”

House antisemitism investigation targets University of California, Berkeley

The University of California, Berkeley, on Tuesday became the fifth target of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s expanding investigation of antisemitism on college campuses.

In a letter to Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ, University of California President Michael Drake and University of California Board of Regents Chair Richard Leib, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) requested documents relating to the school’s handling of incidents and reports of antisemitism, and internal communications and meeting notes relating to antisemitism and Israel. 

It also requests documentation relating to the school’s equity and inclusion office and related programs, as well as foreign donations to the school.

The letter highlights a number of antisemitic and anti-Israel incidents on Berkeley’s campus, including a riot targeting Jewish students that shut down a recent speaking event; multiple incidents of assault, harassment, vandalism and robbery; an ongoing blockade of a campus gate that the school has declined to break up; an incident when students were offered extra credit for attending a pro-Palestinian protest; a public statement by a pro-Palestinian student group praising the Oct. 7 attack; anti-Israel and antisemitic comments by faculty; and the college’s own response to Oct. 7.

It also notes that in August of 2022 — months before the Oct. 7 attacks — nine Berkeley Law School student groups adopted bylaws committing to boycotting speakers who support Zionism or Israel.

“An environment of pervasive antisemitism has been documented at UC Berkeley dating back to well before the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack,” Foxx wrote. She also referenced several instances of internal criticism from students and faculty, as well as condemnation from the California Legislative Jewish Caucus.

Foxx gave the school until April 2 to respond to the request.

A UC Berkeley student spoke to a committee roundtable on antisemitism last month; five of the nine schools whose students appeared at the event have now been hit with document requests. UC Berkeley is the first public university to become part of the investigation.

Dan Mogulof, a UC Berkeley spokesperson, said that the school would “provide a comprehensive response to the committee’s questions and concerns,” adding that “UC Berkeley has long been committed to confronting antisemitism, and to supporting the needs and interests of its Jewish students, faculty, and staff” and “has an unwavering commitment to ensuring every student feels safe and welcome, at all times, in all places, regardless of who they are, or what they believe in.”

He also noted that the speaker whose event was called off due to the riot in February spoke on Monday without incident.

Columbia’s proposals to tackle antisemitism draw mixed reviews from Jewish leaders

The recommendations handed down earlier this week from Columbia University’s task force on antisemitism painted a picture of Jewish students feeling “isolation and pain” in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests that have gripped the campus since Oct. 7. 

They also cited a lack of disciplinary response from the university regarding unauthorized protests of the Israel-Hamas war as contributing to Jewish students’ struggles on campus, and called for the university to more effectively investigate policy violations by creating an easier process for filing complaints.

But on the pivotal question of whether some of the slogans chanted at those rallies veer from legitimate political speech into antisemitism the task force’s recommendations are ambiguous.

The report states, “Obviously, the chants ‘gas the Jews’ and ‘Hitler was right’ are calls to genocide, but fortunately no one at Columbia has been shouting these phrases… Rather, many of the chants at recent Columbia protests are viewed differently by different members of the Columbia community: some feel strongly that these are calls to genocide, while others feel strongly that they are not.” 

The report does not, however, specifically address the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free,” which has frequently been chanted at protests on Columbia’s campus and is widely viewed by Jewish groups as a call for genocide of Israelis.

According to David Schizer, a professor of law and economics and dean emeritus of Columbia’s law school, who is one of the three co-chairs of the task force, the key issue that the 24-page report addresses is the thorny matter of campus free speech — emphasizing that “everyone needs to have a right to speak and to protest,” he said. 

“How can we make sure the people have the right to speak and protest, while at the same time ensuring that protests don’t interfere with the ability of other members of the community to teach classes, study for a test, to hear their professors,” Schizer, who is also the former CEO of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, continued. While the report emphasizes the right to peaceful demonstrations, it also condemns faculty for participating in unauthorized demonstrations.

But some prominent leaders of the movement to fight antisemitism in higher education expressed skepticism that a set of recommendations could fix the raging antisemitism on Columbia’s campus — which has included repeated violations of the rules on protests and physical assault and other serious attacks on Jewish students. 

“The new recommendations have some technically good work which could provide incremental advances, but it’s certainly not the kind of thing that will solve Columbia’s problems,” Kenneth Marcus, founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told JI. The Brandeis Center recently filed federal complaints against the University of California for antisemitism at UC Berkeley and American University, while the Department of Education is currently investigating Brandeis Center complaints filed against Wellesley, SUNY New Paltz, the University of Southern California, Brooklyn College and the University of Illinois for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and for discrimination against Jewish students.

The recommendations come as Columbia faces pressure from donors and investigations by Congress and the Biden administration over antisemitism. It also comes in the wake of scrutiny regarding a number of antisemitism task forces set up at elite universities as a response to the surge in antisemitism that erupted following the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks in Israel. Five months later, questions remain over the effectiveness and direction of such groups — with some experts claiming task forces have been all talk with minimal action so far. 

But Schizer said that in Columbia’s case, there have been months of ongoing research of university policies, including interviewing students. It aims to release a series of reports in the coming months with the goal of gaining a deeper understanding of the campus climate and providing further recommendations.

The report states that while it agrees with the university’s principle that calls for genocide, like other incitement to violence, violate the rules, “the application of it should be clarified.”

It goes on to encourage the university’s legal team to “provide more guidance on this issue,” and emphasizes that clearer guidance is needed, like the university has done with its rules on gender-based misconduct to include “scenarios,” “to provide greater clarity help to provide fair notice, so Columbia affiliates have more of a sense of what is permissible (even if offensive) and what is not.” 

Columbia administration plans to review the task force’s interim policy at the end of this semester. Minouche Shafik, the university’s president, said in a statement that the new recommendations —  the first set in a series — are welcomed by the university and “will continue across a number of fronts as the University works to address this ancient, but sadly persistent, form of hate.” 

Marcus said it’s “good that Columbia finally has good people asking serious questions about harassment and disruptive protests,” but he added, “What’s needed is not just a few recommendations regarding the rules on protest. The fact is that there’s been antisemitic bigotry [at] Columbia University for decades now.”

“It’s not as if a few changes to the protest policies are going to substantially change the institution as long as they continue business as usual,” he continued. “Much of what’s in this new set of recommendations could have been written on Oct. 6 given everything that’s happened since. What’s needed is not a series of incremental measures, but a rethinking of what Columbia is doing to cause harm, not just to Jewish students but also to the surrounding community. These recommendations may lead to technical and marginal changes in the ways that the university responds to specific incidents, and generally speaking that’s a good thing. 

But it’s certainly not a solution to the problem.” 

Marcus noted that the recommendations are “framed fairly narrow, with response to only one narrow piece of the problem.” 

“I know this is only one of the series of reports that we can anticipate, but if this is an indication of what’s to come, it may provide some useful professional iteration but not a truly substantial change,” he said. “It does not indicate a new mindset that is ready to deal with the problems Oct. 7 has revealed.” 

Mark Yudof, chair of the Academic Engagement Network, expressed a similar sentiment as Marcus, but added that he’s “hopeful” the report will bring change. Schizer, as well as the two other co-chairs of the task force, Ester Fuchs and Nicolas Lemann, are all longtime members of AEN. 

“We need adequate rules about speech and we need to put teeth into it and have reasonable procedures in which people are actually disciplined for violating the rules,” Yudof said, calling the report “complex.” 

While skeptical, Yudof also expressed praise for the recommendations — “I think Columbia’s report gets at the core problem of education and I applaud them,” he said. 

“I like the report and am hopeful… I would urge the Columbia administration to adopt the recommendations of the task force, but the proof will be in the pudding.”

‘It’s unspeakable’: UC Berkeley Jewish leaders decry university’s response to antisemitic mob

The day after an antisemitic mob at the University of California, Berkeley, forced the evacuation of Jewish students from an event where an Israel Defense Forces reservist was speaking, the university’s two top leaders sent an email to the entire Berkeley community.

“Upholding our values,” its subject line read. 

When Danielle Sobkin, a third-year student and the co-president of the pro-Israel student group that had organized the event, saw the email, she hoped it would address the targeting of Jewish students that occurred during the Monday night incident. Roughly 200 protestors surrounded the building where the event took place and tried to push their way in, shattering a door and several windows while chanting “Intifada!” Three Jewish students were injured. A junior told J. The Jewish News of Northern California he was called a “dirty Jew” and a Nazi. 

But rather than addressing anything specific about the protesters’ Jewish targets, the email — written by Chancellor Carol Christ and Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Benjamin Hermalin — described the incident as an attack on the “fundamental values of the university, which are also essential to maintain and nurture open inquiry and an inclusive civil society, the bedrock of a genuinely democratic nation.”

“The entire email didn’t even mention antisemitism. Not one word of it,” Sobkin told Jewish Insider on Thursday. “I think the entire response is a huge failure on the part of the administration, on the part of the chancellor. And I think students are just really disappointed that fear and the Jewish hate that was so blatantly perpetuated on Monday night has been essentially sidelined, not being recognized, nor has anything been done about it.”

Well before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel touched off a dramatic rise in antisemitism at American college campuses, Berkeley had grappled with an active and virulent anti-Israel faction whose supporters sometimes crossed the line into antisemitism. In 2022, several student groups at Berkeley’s law school pledged not to host speakers who had ever supported Zionism, prompting a civil rights investigation from the Department of Education. 

The failure to mention “antisemitism” in the university’s official condemnation of the protest reflects what several Jewish community leaders at Berkeley and in the Bay Area have long identified as a glaring blind spot at the prestigious university.

“I found it to be shocking that the statement from the administration didn’t use the word ‘Jewish’ or ‘antisemitism’ anywhere,” said Tyler Gregory, CEO of the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council. “It feels like they’re trying to gaslight people about who the victims are. Whether that was intentional or an oversight doesn’t matter. Either way, we’ve got a problem here.”

In a Wednesday conversation with JI, Dan Mogulof, Berkeley’s assistant vice chancellor for executive communications, did not mention antisemitism when discussing the incident or how the university would respond to it. He said the school may consider adding a required seminar about “the importance of diversity and perspective and civic discourse and freedom of speech,” but added that he “would be hard-pressed to think of policies that would be unique to the Jewish community that would be necessary or effective.”

In a follow-up conversation on Thursday, Mogulof acknowledged that the Monday incident had, in fact, been “informed by antisemitism, but that’s different than saying that everybody there was motivated by that or engaged in that.” The email from the chancellor did not mention antisemitism because, on Tuesday morning, the school had not been able to verify whether there had been antisemitic incidents, Mogulof said, and they wanted to send something out. “The only source of reports about antisemitic expression was on social media.”

Mogulof had been at the Monday event, which he described as “terrible.” But he claimed he had not witnessed any antisemitic actions. “It was really chaotic,” said Mogulof. 

As the administrators drafted the email to students, “we wanted to universalize it,” he said of the Monday incident. “It’s just unacceptable, no matter who was being targeted. It applies to everybody.” He then downplayed the importance of the email, saying “they have a wonderful symbolic value” but that only about 15% of students open the email. “We’re not just relying on campus messages.” On Friday, he noted, several administrators will meet with Jewish community members in an event organized by the chancellor’s advisory committee on Jewish life and campus climate, a body created years prior to Oct. 7. 

When asked if the event constituted a security failure for the university, Mogulof demurred. “Well, I don’t know. You’ve heard me speak. Would you?” he asked. “The fact that we were able to safely evacuate the building and get people away from the mob with what so far are two reports of minor injuries, I’m thankful that happened.” 

“I think what happened on Monday was more of a wake-up call that we’re in new territory,” Mogulof said.

But Jewish community members on campus view the security and planning failures that led to a mob successfully shutting down an event organized by pro-Israel events as an almost inevitable consequence of the Berkeley administration not responding forcefully enough as Jewish students have faced harassment and exclusion in recent months. 

“It can’t be just brushed under the rug, like it’s been done. This is a pattern,” said Berkeley Chabad Rabbi Gil Leeds. “It’s unspeakable, the level of, I think, negligence and cover-up for these actions.”

A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom told JI that, “the Governor vehemently condemns antisemitism and has called on California’s university systems to take additional steps to protect student safety.”

In a statement to JI, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is running for Senate, decried the incident and called out university administrators for failing to act. 

“Over the last several months, we’ve seen a wave of antisemitism on college campuses across the country. What happened at Berkeley is just the latest, horrifying example,” said Schiff, days before California’s Senate primary. “It’s unacceptable in any setting, especially in a California university that prides itself on inclusion. And yet, this kind of intimidation — and inaction from administrators — is an all-too-common reality for so many Jewish students today.” 

Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), who is one of Schiff’s competitors in the race and a former visiting professor at Berkeley, condemned Monday’s incident in a statement.

“Hate has no place in our communities. It’s on all of us to combat it by speaking firmly against bigotry, especially on college campuses — where free speech should be respected, but hate speech never tolerated. As a former UC Berkeley faculty member, I strongly condemn Monday’s events,” said Porter. “Stopping hate includes condemning antisemitism, and I will continue to speak out against hate targeting our Jewish communities.” 

A spokesperson for Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the third major Democrat vying for the Senate seat and the congressperson who represents Berkeley, did not respond to a request for comment.

Berkeley has not faced the same public pressure from Jewish donors like at other top schools, most notably Harvard and Penn. Gregory, from the JCRC, and Rabbi Leeds both called on philanthropists to consider putting pressure on Berkeley.

“I would call upon them to really consider making sure that the university — if you’re giving so much money to a school that bears your name, you would want it to definitely have a certain character and definitely not be a place that is unfriendly to Jewish people,” Leeds said. 

The Koret Foundation, a major Jewish philanthropy in the Bay Area, has been a major supporter of universities in the area, including a $12 million gift to Berkeley in 2020. The nonprofit’s CEO, Jeff Farber, told JI that the organization “has always taken current circumstances into consideration for decisions about grants.”

“In addition to punishing the perpetrators of this violent intimidation, universities and those who fund them must do more to protect and support Jewish students. Simply put, those entrusted with the safety and education of the future generation must have the moral clarity to stand up for what’s right. The world has changed and stronger responses are necessary to protect Jewish students,” Farber said. “We are in close contact with administrators at the universities we partner with and will continue to insist they implement serious, meaningful action to address antisemitism on their campuses.” 

The university has opened disciplinary investigations into the students involved, and campus police have begun investigations, including a hate crimes probe, Mogulof said. He declined to comment further, citing student privacy concerns. He also declined to say whether Bears for Palestine — the Students for Justice in Palestine-affiliated group that organized the protest and is a registered student group on campus — would face any consequences.

“We cannot punish or sanction anyone or any group for constitutionally protected language. We can and we will punish any individual or any group that engages in expression not protected by the First Amendment,” Mogulof said.

The leaders of Bears for Israel, the pro-Israel group that organized the event, had been seeking a meeting with Berkeley’s chancellor since October. They reached out again this week but have not heard back. Mogulof said the chancellor would “absolutely” consider a meeting with them but declined to say more.

“It’s really difficult to be a Jewish student leader, just in general, but especially right now it’s especially isolating. Nobody’s really in your corner,” said Sobkin. “That further develops this feeling of hopelessness and loneliness in what we’re doing.”

On Monday, after campus police moved the event from its original location and then failed to secure the second location, and after attendees were forced to evacuate through the basement to exit from a parking garage away from the protestors, the speaker — Ran Bar-Yoshafat — did deliver his talk, at the campus Chabad house. Not everyone made it; Rabbi Leeds got a frantic phone call from the mother of one student who had been separated from the group, and who had called her crying. But the event continued, almost like a therapy session. Leeds promised that the students would invite more pro-Israel speakers, and would not be afraid.

“On the Sather Gate, where they’re protesting and blocking daily, it says the motto of the school, ‘Fiat Lux. Let there be light.’ It’s from the Bible,” Leeds said, referring to a well-known gate on campus. “It’s the Jewish people; that’s what we stand for, and we want to make sure that there’s only light coming out of Berkeley again. This is definitely a dark day in the history of Berkeley, and all of all of higher education. But from the greatest darkness comes the greatest light, so we can really make a difference.”

Jewish students recount a series of campus horror stories at congressional roundtable

For two hours on Wednesday, lawmakers heard from a parade of Jewish students, each delivering the same message: They do not feel safe on their college campuses.

Speaking to a roundtable organized by the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, Jewish students from Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia, Rutgers, Stanford, Tulane, Cooper Union and University of California, Berkeley spoke about about the harassment, threats and violence they’ve faced on their campuses since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

The students’ accounts were all remarkably similar, despite coming from a range of locations and school types, including openly antisemitic taunts and harassment, angry mobs rampaging through campus and overtaking campus buildings, vandalism and in some cases threats of or actual incidents of violence, all going largely or completely unaddressed by university administrators and campus police, despite repeated and sustained pleas from the students for help and support. 

In some cases, the students said professors and administrators were complicit or actively involved in the antisemitic activity. Students said that they feared for their safety and even their lives.

The students, saying they felt abandoned by their universities and had no faith in them to act to protect them, pleaded for action from Congress. They said that they hoped their testimony could serve as a wakeup call to both Congress and the American public.

“As my friends from Harvard and UPenn can tell you, it doesn’t end simply because presidents are replaced. Systemic change is needed,” Kevin Feigelis, a Stanford student, said. “Universities have proven they have no intention of fixing themselves. It must be you, and it must be now.”

Shabbos Kestenbaum — a Harvard student who said he’d contacted the school’s antisemitism task force more than 40 times without a response and had been threatened in a video with a machete by a still-employed Harvard staff member — called Congress and the courts the students’ “last hope.”

Multiple students and lawmakers said that the current events on campus carry echoes of 1930s Germany or the pogroms in Russia.

Some suggested potential courses of action that Congress and other federal branches could take, including leveraging U.S. taxpayer funding or the schools’ tax-exempt statuses, placing third-party monitors on campus and enforcing diversity requirements in Middle East studies departments requiring them to include pro-Israel views.

Students from Harvard, Penn and MIT all said that little has changed on their campuses since last year’s blockbuster congressional hearing on campus antisemitism, which prompted the ouster of Harvard and Penn’s presidents.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), the committee’s chair, vowed that she and her colleagues would not stop their efforts to tackle antisemitism on campus.

“I was very emotional,” Foxx told Jewish Insider, “I’m a mother and a grandmother. I have one grandchild who went to college and I’m not sure what I would have done if he had come home to say he felt threatened on his campus like these students feel threatened. No student on a college campus, in this country, in the year 2024, should feel threatened.”

Foxx said that the committee’s antisemitism investigation is proceeding deliberately, but that the schools will be held to account. The committee has already requested documents from Harvard, Penn and Columbia and has now subpoenaed Harvard. Foxx suggested that other schools whose students had appeared Thursday could be next.

Brandeis Center files lawsuit against UC Berkeley for hostile campus environment

Citing claims of a “longstanding, unchecked spread of antisemitism” on the University of California, Berkeley’s campus, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed a complaint on behalf of Jewish students on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the campus is a “hotbed of anti-Jewish hostility and harassment,” Jewish Insider has learned.

The lawsuit, which names the University of California (UC) Regents, UC President Michael Drake, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ and other officials as defendants, claims that since Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack in Israel, antisemitism has been exacerbated at the school — citing several on-campus incidents of intimidation, harassment and physical violence against Jewish students.

UC Berkeley Jewish students wrote in the complaint that the school does so little to protect Jewish students, it feels as if the school is condoning antisemitism. They added that officials at the university display a “general disregard” for Jewish students.

“The concerns of Jewish students are not being taken seriously and incidents that are affecting Jewish students are not being treated the same as incidents that would affect another targeted minority on campus,” Hannah Schlacter, an MBA student at the school, told JI. 

The complaint, a copy of which was obtained by JI, details a pro-Palestinian rally following Oct. 7 in which a Jewish undergraduate who was draped in an Israeli flag was attacked by two protesters who struck him in the head with a metal water bottle. 

It further cites that Jewish students and Jewish faculty are receiving hate mail calling for their gassing and murder, and claims that many Jewish students report feeling afraid to go to class. Pro-Palestinian protesters, the suit continues, disrupted a prayer gathering by Jewish students and blocked the main entrance to campus, and a faculty member went on an 18-minute anti-Israel rant in front of roughly 1,000 freshmen in his lecture class. 

“Frankly, I’m not sure why a Jewish student would come to [Berkeley] law school,” UCB professor Steven Davidoff Solomon, who teaches an undergraduate class on antisemitism in the law, told JI. “There’s a group of students who feel free to say the nastiest slurs as long as they substitute Zionist for Jew and they repeatedly do that while the administration refuses to take steps to condemn it, to conduct training, to take measures they would take if it was discrimination against other minorities, and it’s disappointing,” he said, calling the lawsuit a “last resort.” 

UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky acknowledged rising antisemitism at the school in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. “I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life have I seen or felt the antisemitism of the last few weeks.” He noted that, “[t]wo weeks ago, at a town hall, a student told me that what would make her feel safe in the law school would be to ‘get rid of the Zionists.’” He added he had “heard several times that I have been called ‘part of a Zionist conspiracy,’ which echoes antisemitic tropes that have been expressed for centuries.”

Schlacter, who testified about antisemitism on campus to the University of California Board of Regents earlier this month, said, “When we look at the policy in place, it appears the policy is not being enforced for issues affecting Jewish students. When it isn’t enforced for our situation but is for other situations, that to me is discrimination.” 

“Moreover, policy not being enforced sends a message that when there are hate crimes against Jewish students, that is accepted because it will be swept under the rug,” she continued. “We’ve made efforts to speak to the administration and do not feel like we are taken seriously. There’s a disconnect between the asks students are making [and] the actions the administration is taking.”  

After Schlacter and other students met with UC Regents, the board committed $7 million to combating antisemitism and Islamophobia. “Seven million dollars distributed across 10 campuses per year, I’m not sure how far that will go,” she said. “Also, throwing money at the problem is not getting to the root, which is that Jewish students are being treated differently and policies are not being enforced when there’s Jewish students involved.” 

Schlacter said she does not want to see the campus anti-Israel group, Bears for Palestine, named for the school’s mascot, shut down, as several other schools have done with chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine. “Disbanding those groups is not a long-term solution,” she said. “The long-term solution is looking at culture across the UC system. Why is there hostility and how do we combat that in the culture? What programs and initiatives can we launch to have a more truly inclusive culture?” 

Schlacter said she would like to see the school’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion office employees be trained on identifying antisemitism.  

UCB Chabad Rabbi Gil Leeds, who is also a UCB alum and has served as the campus Chabad rabbi since 2007, said the antisemitism situation is worse than it’s ever been at the school. “Jewish students assaulted at rallies is a whole new level of hostilities that we haven’t seen,” Leeds said, noting that several students involved with Chabad are from Israel. “Police are scared to get involved because they are worried about greater violence. That shows you what we’re dealing with.” 

Leeds said there has been “tremendous fear and trepidation,” particularly last month when National SJP called for a “Day of Resistance” at campuses nationwide. “Our armed guard that day came prepared with tear gas, everything he thought he would need… the company that we contacted would not agree to send us an unarmed guard, that’s the level of intensity.” 

The lawsuit states that while antisemitism has increased since Oct. 7, it has long been prevalent on campus. It cites a decision last year by nine law school student organizations to amend their constitutions with a bylaw that bans any pro-Israel speaker. The numbers have now swelled to 23 groups, including academic journals that prohibit Zionists from publishing and pro-bono organizations that prevent Jewish students from receiving hands-on legal experience, training, supervision and mentorship. 

The ban denies Jewish law students networking opportunitIes provided to others; deprives them of earning pro-bono hours for state bar requirements; curtails their avenues for developing and improving legal research, writIng, and editIng skills; and limits their choices for obtaining academic credits towards graduatIon, according to the lawsuit, which notes this is all illegal under federal law and university policies.

”The situation at Berkeley has deteriorated to the point that something really needs to be done beyond just raising awareness. We’re facing antisemitism at campuses around the country, but Berkeley is especially bad. Of all places, Berkeley had a number of warnings that they needed to address antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and yet they failed to heed them,” said Kenneth Marcus, the Brandeis Center founder and a Berkeley Law school alum.

While the situation that was highlighted last year focused on the law school, Marcus said “it has certainly spread far beyond that and we have been getting reports throughout the university, including the undergraduate institution.” 

According to the complaint, Berkeley’s acquiescence to these discriminatory policies has helped give antisemitism free reign on campus in violation of the law. “This suit targets the longstanding, unchecked spread of antisemitism at the University of California Berkeley, which, following the October 7 Hamas attacks, has erupted in on-campus displays of hatred, harassment, and physical violence against Jews,” states the complaint. “Court interventIon is now needed to protect students and faculty and to end this anti-Semitc discrimination and harassment, which violates University policy, federal civil rights laws, and the U.S. Constitution.” 

Earlier this month, the Brandeis Center, the Anti-Defamation League, Hillel International and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP launched the Campus Antisemitism Legal Line (CALL), a free legal protection helpline for college students who have experienced antisemitism. 

“After Oct. 7 there’s been a lack of moral leadership but when you look more closely, Jewish students [at Berkeley] have been discriminated against for well over a year,” the ADL’s Central Pacific regional director, Marc Levine, told JI. “It wasn’t just demonstration in support of Hamas’ attacks that this began. Student groups already were actively banning Zionists from participating in their activities.” 

Levine, a former California State assemblymember, called on local politicians to hold the University of California accountable for the “gutless response to antisemitism on campus.”

Dept. of Education to probe UC Berkeley Law School over antisemitism allegations

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is opening an investigation into the University of California, Berkeley Law School, in response to Jewish students who complained of a “hostile environment” at the law school after nine student organizations pledged not to invite pro-Israel speakers to campus. 

In August, nine registered student organizations at Berkeley’s law school adopted a bylaw prohibiting pro-Israel speakers from participating in their events, sparking an outcry from Jewish students and alumni. The bylaw states that the groups “will not invite speakers that have expressed and continued to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

A Jewish Journal op-ed by Ken Marcus, president of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, went viral under an eye-catching headline: “Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones.” 

The federal investigation came in response to a complaint filed by Gabriel Groisman, a Miami attorney and the former mayor of Bal Harbour, Fla., and Arsen Ostrovsky, the CEO of the International Legal Forum, a Tel Aviv-based organization. The pair filed a complaint in November, writing to the Department that they “firmly believe that there has been an act of discrimination against the Jewish community at UC Berkeley School of Law.” The complaint says that a total of 14 student groups have now joined the pledge to bar Zionist speakers.

The investigation will probe “whether the university failed to respond appropriately” to complaints “from Jewish law students, faculty and staff that they experienced a hostile environment at the law school based on their shared Jewish ancestry” in light of the new policy adopted by those organizations, according to a Dec. 13 email, obtained by Jewish Insider, from the Department’s San Francisco regional director to Groisman and Ostrovsky. The email notes that opening an investigation into the matter does not mean the Office of Civil Rights has made a “determination with regard to its merits.” A Department of Education spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment from JI. 

A spokesperson from UC Berkeley’s law school said the school is aware of the probe and that the “university will fully cooperate with the investigation,” said Alex A.G. Shapiro, assistant dean for communications at Berkeley Law. “The campus has in place strong anti-discrimination policies that support our belief in and compliance with what we understand to be the values and obligations enshrined in Title VI and the First Amendment.” 

Title VI is the part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex or national origin at any program receiving federal assistance.

“Zionism is a core characteristic of the Jewish identity, and to discriminate based on someone’s core characteristic is a discrimination on that group,” Groisman told JI on Thursday. 

Groisman and Ostrovsky have been in touch with students at the law school, but they filed the case themselves, and not on behalf of any particular students. But Groisman said those students expressed concern about antisemitism at Berkeley.

“It’s absolutely clear that the situation was exacerbated by the moves that these [student] groups made. But not only that, but also by the response of the university,” Groisman explained. 

Berkeley Law School’s Jewish Student Association board wrote in an August blog post that its members are concerned about the impact that these organizations’ decision — which also included support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement — would have on the Jewish community. Law school Dean Erwin Chemerinsky criticized the move, but called it a matter of free speech, and argued in a Daily Beast article that national headlines had blown the controversy out of proportion.

Updated at 3:58 p.m. ET to include text of the bylaw.

Gottheimer urges Department of Education to investigate Berkeley law school

Congressional pressure is emerging for action against student groups at the University of California, Berkeley Law School that voted in August to adopt bylaws barring pro-Israel speakers.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) is urging the Department of Education to investigate the school for potential violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, following a statement on the issue from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) on Monday. 

The move by the nine student groups at UC Berkeley’s School of Law attracted condemnation from some Jewish organizations, with Louis D. Brandeis Center founder Ken Marcus saying the decision amounted to the groups developing “Jewish-Free Zones.” The school’s dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, disputed that characterization while denouncing the policies, arguing that the issue was a First Amendment dispute.

A letter sent by Gottheimer to Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona and obtained by Jewish Insider said that while the individual students have First Amendment rights, groups chartered by a university that receive university funds or taxpayer dollars are barred from discriminating against students on the basis of protected characterisitics. A 2019 executive order, also referenced by Gottheimer, specified that antisemitic discrimination is barred under Title VI.

Gottheimer requested a report from the department on whether federal funding “is being used to further discrimination against Jewish and pro-Israel students, including through funding for campus organizations.”

“It is important to send a clear message that all students and community members, including those who are Jewish, will not be singled out, penalized, or made to feel unwelcome at UC Berkeley,” the New Jersey congressman wrote. “I respectfully ask you to report to Congress on whether and how federal taxpayer dollars are used to discriminate against Jewish and pro-Israel students at UC Berkeley.”

Gottheimer is the second congressional Democrat to speak out on the issue this week. Sherman represents a Los Angeles-area district, said in a lengthy statement on Monday that he was “outraged and disappointed” by the move, adding that “for too long, we have given antisemitism a pass when its proponents label it as anti-Zionism.” He urged UC Berkeley to pull the clubs’ funding and registration unless they repealed the anti-Israel bylaws.

What’s going on at UC Berkeley Law

A decision by nine student organizations at the University of California Berkeley School of Law in August to adopt bylaws prohibiting pro-Israel speakers sparked an uproar in the Jewish community over the weekend.

Last Wednesday, the Jewish Journal published an op-ed with the headline “Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones,” written by Ken Marcus, the founder and president of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. The legal group has been at the forefront of a number of recent legal fights on college campuses tied to administrators’ failures to protect Jewish students. The op-ed ignited a media storm, with the New York Post, The Jerusalem Post, Newsweek, National Review and other outlets dedicating space to the issue. Barbra Streisand, who has lent her talents to Friends of the IDF fundraisers and has received an honorary doctorate from Hebrew University, tweeted to her nearly 800,000 followers, “When does anti-Zionism bleed into broad anti-Semitism?” and followed up with a second tweet linking to Marcus’ op-ed.  

Marcus called the move “frightening and unexpected, like a bang on the door in the night,” and warned that the decision could have potential legal implications for the student groups and the university.

Days later, The Daily Beast published a counter-argument, “​​There Are No ‘Jewish-Free’ Zones on the UC-Berkeley Campus,” written by Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the state university’s law school. Chemerinsky argued that fewer than 10 out of the law school’s 100 groups had adopted the bylaws, and while he disagreed with the move, none of the participating organizations had acted on the bylaws, and the debate remained a First Amendment issue.

Chemerinsky had denounced the original decision by student groups, noting that as a supporter of Israel’s existence, he himself could not be invited to speak to any of the participating student groups. In the wake of the announcement last month, the Jewish Student Association at Berkeley Law created a Medium account and issued its first and so far only post, addressing the controversy and expressing concern that the move would silence Jewish voices on campus.

In the following weeks, the conversation dissipated, according to individuals on campus who spoke to Jewish Insider. The fall academic semester began without incident, and remained quiet until the op-ed published in the Jewish Journal sparked outrage from coast to coast, leading observers, activists and parents of college students to speculate about the current state of affairs at the Bay Area university, known in the latter half of the 20th century as the epicenter of collegiate political activism.

“Both trends can be true,” Tyler Gregory, the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, told JI. “We need to give credit to the administration and to the campus Jewish groups — the Hillel, the faculty — for making Berkeley a more friendly place for Jewish and Zionist students. At the same time, we should be rightfully concerned, and be paying attention to this new tactic of clubs trying to ban Zionists from campus groups.”

UC Berkeley is among the American academic institutions producing the highest number of joint academic papers with Israeli co-authors, and has a sizable Israel studies program, with visiting faculty from Israel on campus.

In 2019, the Center for Jewish Studies at Berkeley created the Berkeley Antisemitism Education Initiative to address antisemitism on campus. Ethan Katz, a professor at the university who chairs the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Jewish Life & Campus Climate and was one of the initiative’s co-founders, noted that the challenges facing Berkeley students are similar to those facing students elsewhere in the country, and that the administration has created “a very strong set of supports in place and a very strong set of institutional homes for those students.”

“I think that most Jewish students at Cal would say something along these lines of, you know, there are spaces in which they feel challenged or even that students could say things that would make them uncomfortable,” Katz said, “but that they have a lot of support from student life, people from faculty, and I also think it’s very important to note that there’s a great deal of support from the administration.”

Pro-Israel students at Berkeley, Katz explained, “face the same political headwinds that pro-Israel students are facing on many campuses.”

“Those concerns are real,” he added, “and there are things that make it challenging for those students sometimes… It’s a reality of where we are in the contemporary American conversation about Zionism and Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Gregory noted a shift in on-campus attitudes toward Israel in recent years, but acknowledged that the university’s activist reputation contributed to the outcry. “It holds a special place in our imagination, and I think that’s why this has gotten so much attention,” he explained.

“What I think is important, as far as [Marcus’s] argument is concerned,” he added, “is that we can’t let this trend spread to other places like a cancer. And so if we can understand what our legal tools are around this so that we can stop it in its tracks, great, that should be pursued. But people should not lose sight of the big picture at Cal.”