WORK IN PROGRESS

Agents of the Fascist Bibi-Netanyahu Regime

Contents

• Applying the "3D test" against Zionists' weaponization of the the malicious "3D definition" of anti-semitism to (1) Demonize, (2) Delegitimize, and (3) hold critics to a Double-Standard.

• Zionists propaganda tactics deployed in the U.S., Israel, and globally: 

• How the Zionists are bullying and demonizing critics using classic Soviet Propaganda propaganda techniques

• 
  

**********

Zionists propaganda tactics deployed in the U.S., Israel, and globally: 

Weaponizing a Fraudulent definition of "Anti-Semitism" against criticism of Israel

American- and Israeli-Zionists are engaged in the following:

1) Censoring Free Speech and Free Thought and Reality itself

 by insisting the world accept blatant LIES, Propaganda, and Sloganeering--as if we're all Inferior non-persons and Not Chosen by God, Not Equal under rule of law and Eyes of God Almights, and Stupid, Blind-as-bats, Treasonous, Soviet Stooges  (like Tucker Carlson, Senator Rand Paul, and House Representative Matt Gaetz).

2) Slinging baseless Slogananeering  "Anti-Semitism" which means 

• Anti-Apartheid =  Anti-Semitism

• Non-discrimination = Anti-Semitism

• Equality =  Anti-Semitism

• Rule of law = Anti-Semitism

• Opposing Confiscation of Land without Due Process or Compensation  = Anti-Semitism

• Palestinian right to exist =  Anti-Semitism

• Criticism of 4-meter wall surrounding Bethlehem prison ghetto =  Anti-Semitism

• Criticism of Human Rights violations =  Anti-Semitism

• Complaining about massacre of civilians =  Anti-Semitism

• etc...

3) Corrupting our language by obscuring their Anti-American Censorship agenda under the bannerj of "Anti-Semitism" 

The Zionists use the label "anti-semitism" as a means of bludgeoning anyone who dares criticize the policy of the State of Israel. By means of "semantic infiltration," attempting to force us to accept their Zionist conception of a Nazi 2.0 world order, which includes a Holocaust reenactment serving practical purposes such as land-grabbing and eliminating inferior non-humans, as well as pure spiritual  revenge fantasy where the Jews are the master race, the Americans inferior dumb-ass suckers, and the Palestinians are the targets of Holocausting by aerial bombardment extending beyond Hanukkah!

Zionist forces seek to undermine the foundations of our international-rules based order and all of Western Civilization (and Christianity)  by means of "semantic infiltration," a term coined 10 blocks away from TULPPP headquarters by Fred Charles Ikle (formerly a professor of political science at MIT and lately director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency). Some years ago, in a paper on American difficulties in negotiating with communist countries (published by the Rand Corporation), he pointed to the process whereby we come to adopt the language of our adversaries in describing political reality. Ile gave to this process the intriguing term "semantic infiltration." tlicious NAZI IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism. According Nazi-Zionist Propagandists, to be Pro-America = Anti-Semitic, but America is Home to the largest collective of Jews is global history. Zionist Bibi Netanyahu is to Judaism as Televangelist & Whore-patron Jimmy Swaggart is to Christianity as Scientology is to Science. 

3) Zionists Terrorize Jews (first & foremost) and other critics by Bullying & Fearmongering against students, faculty, and parents--

Zionist Bullying and fearmongering against students, faculty, and parents--especially Jewish parents, and Jewish students, who are NOT cowardly, pathetic, weak, Non-thinking Zionist thugs. American Jews as much any other group of Americans hold sacred our cherished American's Creed and our values, and these American Jews are the True Jewish Collective--and as Proud Americans, We are grateful that America is home to more Jews than any nation in World History--including the modern nation-state of Israel, authorized into existence by possible mistake made by the U.N. Security Council representing the votes of  the USA and other victorious Allied powers.

4) Engaging in an Anti-American Assault against our Way of LIFE and our Union 

5) Attacking our cherished freedoms and our Children on College Campuses,  

6) Undermining civil society and integrity of our public and private institutions

Billionaire American Zionists and American-based Zionist anti-democracy lobbyists and their fake pro-Israel 'charities' have sought to: 

• undermine the free press, 

• turn the media into a pro-Bibi propaganda outlet (e.g. Sheldon Adelson & others) and 

• our free press, our corporate leaders, and our College & University administrators by their HYPOCRITICAL campaign of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against with financial boycotts and pressure campaigns those responsible for molding minds of future generations, namely our College administrators and faculty, and 

• sabotage prospects for peace and creation of an American-style pluralistic society by sponsoring the most Jewish extremist organizations and political factions, such as billionaire Lauder's sponsorship of the infamous political campaign consultants--Finkelstein and Birnbaum--who also helped elected Jew-hating Victor Orban in Hungary with Bibi's blessing of a political campaign [see link to article] that used an old anti-semitic conspiracy of the "all-controlling Jewish financier' against George Soros who was Demonized for the purpose of electing a Jew-hater. It turns out, the real all-controlling Jew was billionaire and former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary--Ron Lauder, current president of the World Jewish Council--a Zionist hate group that has vehemently opposed "Affirmative Action" and civil liberties for all Americans.

7) Exerting Unpatriotic pressure on our national leaders' ability to conduct Foreign Policy

Zionist organizations are advocating for policies AGAINST the best interests of common Israeli citizens and AGAINST interest of the American people and the world we have created with an international-rules based order made possible by the ultimate sacrifice by 600,000 U.S. service members between two world wars, and our Greatest Generation. 

1/ Was Stalin's vote in favor of creation of a Jewish homeland and separate Palestinain homeland his Prank for the purposes of trolling the United States, who would become predictably bogged down by post-colonial crap created by European colonizing powers and their settlers?

Jeannie Suk Gersen

newyorker.com

October 23, 2018

Nearly a century ago, Harvard College moved away from admitting students based solely on measures of academic performance. 

In the nineteen-twenties, the concept of diversity in admissions arose in response to the fear of being overrun by Jewish students, who were considered strong on academic metrics but lacking in qualities of character and personality. 

As the proportion of Jews threatened to exceed a quarter of each class, Harvard’s president, Abbott Lawrence Lowell, proposed limiting Jews to fifteen per cent of the student body. Other Harvard officials balked at such overt discrimination, believing it to be inconsistent with Harvard’s liberal tradition, and, instead, formulated a new, inclusive “policy of equal opportunity” that would lead to the same outcome as Lowell’s proposal. 

It introduced the consideration of qualitative factors such as personality and background, including “geographical diversity,” as part of the admissions process. Representing the diversity of the country meant recruiting and admitting more Midwestern and Southern students, who counterbalanced the droves of Jewish applicants from the Northeast. 

By the class of 1930, as a result of the new plan, Jewish students made up only ten per cent of Harvard’s undergraduates.

That Harvard plan developed into a holistic admissions process, which has, for decades, expanded the notion of diversity beyond geography. The aspiration to assemble a class that is diverse in myriad ways, and the practice of considering many factors alongside academic accomplishment, among them personal qualities and racial background, became influential at many institutions that saw themselves as responsible for socially engineering the American élite. The Supreme Court, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in 1978, hailed the Harvard admissions program as an exemplar of legally permissible affirmative action, in which race is one factor among many taken into consideration in college admissions. According to Harvard’s amicus brief, quoted extensively in Bakke, “the race of an applicant may tip the balance in his favor just as geographic origin or a life spent on a farm may tip the balance in other candidates’ cases. A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.”

Last week, a lawsuit challenging Harvard’s admissions process as discriminatory toward Asian-Americans, organized by the affirmative-action opponent Edward Blum, went to trial in the Boston federal courthouse. 

Among the revelations of the trial’s first week was that, to this day, Harvard makes a special effort to recruit students from twenty states that it calls Sparse Country. In his testimony, William Fitzsimmons, the dean of admissions, who has worked in the admissions office since before Bakke, reminisced about his Harvard roommate in the nineteen-sixties, who was “a great ambassador” for South Dakota. 

He also testified about the letters Harvard sends to high-school students in Sparse Country who have P.S.A.T. scores of at least 1310, encouraging them to apply. 

• The only Sparse Country students with such scores who do not get the letter are Asians; to receive it, an Asian male must score at least 1380. An attorney for the plaintiff asked why a white boy in, say, immigrant-rich Las Vegas with a score of 1310 would get the letter, while his Asian classmate with a 1370 would not. Fitzsimmons responded with generalities about the need to recruit from a broad array of states to achieve diversity.

When asked whether Harvard “put a thumb on the scale for white students” from Sparse Country, Fitzsimmons contrasted students who “have only lived in the Sparse Country state for a year or two” with those who “have lived there for their entire lives under very different settings.” 

Perhaps he meant that whites are more likely to be “farm boys” or “great ambassadors,” like his South Dakotan roommate. Or perhaps he meant that Asians are more likely than whites to apply to Harvard, less likely to be accepted, and more likely to enroll if accepted, so Harvard saves itself postage costs by reducing its recruiting of Asians. 

• But the exchange highlighted a key question of the trial: whether the Harvard admissions process treats white racial identity as an asset, relative to Asian identity (or treats Asian identity as a drawback, relative to white identity). By pointing to the higher numerical cutoff for Asians as a group at the recruitment stage, before any holistic review of individual applicants could have occurred, the plaintiff apparently was suggesting that race is not used as one factor among many but, rather, as the determinative factor, in Harvard’s alleged effort to shape its class to be more white and less Asian. 

• The twentieth-century history of reaching out to regions where Jews were sparse cast something of a pall over the revelation of explicit differential treatment of Asian and white students in Sparse Country. The plaintiff’s lawyer asked Fitzsimmons if he was aware of this history and he responded that he was not there for it but “I’ve certainly heard the charges.”

The plaintiff’s attorneys repeatedly emphasized the lack of written instructions to admissions officers on how to use race permissibly and not impermissibly in evaluating an applicant, in order to argue that Harvard allows implicit racial bias and stereotypes to infect the process. The plaintiff zeroed in on the “personal” rating—which assesses qualities such as likability, maturity, integrity, courage, kindness, even “effervescence,” based on admissions officers’ review of alumni interviews, student essays, and high-school recommendations—as an area where Harvard may let conscious or unconscious bias against Asians tilt decisions. Fitzsimmons’s testimony confirmed that admissions officers gave Asian applicants higher ratings than white applicants in the academic and extracurricular categories, but that Asians’ admissions rates were pulled down because of their lower personal ratings, despite having alumni-interview scores comparable to or higher than those of whites. While Fitzsimmons rejected the notion that Asian-Americans have worse personal qualities than whites, he speculated that their lower personal ratings reflected the fact that high-school teachers and guidance counsellors’ support in recommendations is stronger for whites than for Asians. In other words, if there was indeed bias against Asians, it originated outside of Harvard. If that is so, though, it is curious that the holistic review process, which is designed to take account of various disadvantages in a student’s minority background, would not attempt to correct for it.

When Fitzsimmons was asked whether he thinks “it’s impossible to abuse a holistic review process like Harvard’s,” he replied, “I do.” 

As the trial continues this week, the question that is taking shape is whether Harvard has abused the legally permissible holistic review process to allow implicit discrimination against Asians to express itself. 

To succeed under the standard of Bakke and subsequent Supreme Court cases, Harvard must satisfy “strict scrutiny” by showing that its treatment of Asians was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest (here, student-body diversity). Ironically, the first time the Supreme Court applied a “strict scrutiny” standard to race discrimination (and to Asians) was in Korematsu v. United States, in 1944, to hold that ordering internment camps for Japanese-Americans during the Second World War was permissible. 

Harvard can win at trial if the judge, Allison Burroughs, determines that any discriminatory effect on Asians was unintentional on Harvard’s part or that the disparities shown are not “gross” enough to infer Harvard’s discriminatory intent. While a “smoking gun” in a civil-rights case is not needed, proof of intentional discrimination is always a steep uphill climb. Much of the evidence at trial may not create a good look for Harvard, but it also may not be enough to meet the operative legal definitions of discrimination.

It is rather hard to imagine Harvard losing a case of such importance to its brand as social equalizer, especially in a courthouse in a town so palpably dominated by its footprint and its alumni. But even discrimination claims that fail in court can be resolved, in time, on social terms. The most likely trajectory, with or without court cases, is that the perception of Asians’ personal qualities of character and leadership—perhaps even “effervescence”—will, in a matter of decades, improve, in élite institutions and in American society. Apart from the issue of the legality of race-based affirmative action—which the judge already decided in Harvard’s favor before trial, and which will surely be revived on appeal in the coming year—one outcome of this month’s trial has been to heighten awareness of implicit racial biases. And, win or lose, Harvard’s Asian problem, recalling the experience of Jews, will be a piece of the social history of an American minority group on its way to eventual, if not always enthusiastic, acceptance.

Our Columnists

At Trial, Harvard’s Asian Problem and a Preference for White Students from “Sparse Country”

By Jeannie Suk Gersen

October 23, 2018

At Trial, Harvard’s Asian Problem and a Preference for White Students from “Sparse Country” | The New Yorker

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)

Docket No. 20-1199

Granted: January 23, 2022

Argued: October 30, 2022

Justia Summary

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/20-1199/

In the Harvard College admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” University of North Carolina (UNC) also considers the applicant’s race. SFFA challenged both systems.

The Supreme Court held that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first held that SFFA complies with the standing requirements for organizational plaintiffs as a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith.

Tracing the history of Fourteenth Amendment precedent, the Court acknowledged its "role in that ignoble history,” and subsequent efforts to eliminate racial discrimination. The core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to eliminate all governmentally-imposed discrimination based on race. Any exceptions must survive strict scrutiny. which asks whether the racial classification is used to advance compelling governmental interests and whether the use of race is narrowly tailored--necessary to achieve that interest. Previous holdings permitted race-based college admissions only in compliance with strict scrutiny and acknowledged that, eventually, they must end.

The admissions programs at issue are not sufficiently measurable to permit strict scrutiny. The identified "compelling" interests include training future leaders, acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, promoting a robust marketplace of ideas, and preparing engaged and productive citizens. The question of whether a particular mix of minority students produces those results is standardless. The systems fail to articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and those goals; they use racial categories that are overbroad, arbitrary or undefined, or underinclusive.

The systems also use race as a “negative” and employ stereotypes. College admissions are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants is necessarily at the expense of others. The systems employ “the offensive and demeaning assumption" that students of a particular race think alike. The systems lack a “logical endpoint.

Primary Holding

Supreme Court holds that the race-based admissions programs of two colleges violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

sOURCE jUSTICA

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit

No. 20–1199. Argued October 31, 2022—Decided June 29, 2023[1]

Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are two of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States. Every year, tens of thousands of students apply to each school; many fewer are admitted. Both Harvard and UNC employ a highly selective admissions process to make their decisions. Admission to each school can depend on a student’s grades, recommendation letters, or extracurricular involvement. It can also depend on their race. The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

At Harvard, each application for admission is initially screened by a “first reader,” who assigns a numerical score in each of six categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, personal, and overall. For the “overall” category—a composite of the five other ratings—a first reader can and does consider the applicant’s race. Harvard’s admissions subcommittees then review all applications from a particular geographic area. These regional subcommittees make recommendations to the full admissions committee, and they take an applicant’s race into account. When the 40-member full admissions committee begins its deliberations, it discusses the relative breakdown of applicants by race. The goal of the process, according to Harvard’s director of admissions, is ensuring there is no “dramatic drop-off” in minority admissions from the prior class. An applicant receiving a majority of the full committee’s votes is tentatively accepted for admission. At the end of this process, the racial composition of the tentative applicant pool is disclosed to the committee. The last stage of Harvard’s admissions process, called the “lop,” winnows the list of tentatively admitted students to arrive at the final class. Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the “lop list,” which contains only four pieces of information: legacy status, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

UNC has a similar admissions process. Every application is reviewed first by an admissions office reader, who assigns a numerical rating to each of several categories. Readers are required to consider the applicant’s race as a factor in their review. Readers then make a written recommendation on each assigned application, and they may provide an applicant a substantial “plus” depending on the applicant’s race. At this stage, most recommendations are provisionally final. A committee of experienced staff members then conducts a “school group review” of every initial decision made by a reader and either approves or rejects the recommendation. In making those decisions, the committee may consider the applicant’s race.

Petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), is a nonprofit organization whose stated purpose is “to defend human and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal protection under the law.” SFFA filed separate lawsuits against Harvard and UNC, arguing that their race-based admissions programs violate, respectively, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After separate bench trials, both admissions programs were found permissible under the Equal Protection Clause and this Court’s precedents. In the Harvard case, the First Circuit affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari. In the UNC case, this Court granted certiorari before judgment.

Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6–40.

(a) Because SFFA complies with the standing requirements for organizational plaintiffs articulated by this Court in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, SFFA’s obligations under Article III are satisfied, and this Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of SFFA’s claims.

The Court rejects UNC’s argument that SFFA lacks standing because it is not a “genuine” membership organization. An organizational plaintiff can satisfy Article III jurisdiction in two ways, one of which is to assert “standing solely as the representative of its members,” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, an approach known as representational or organizational standing. To invoke it, an organization must satisfy the three-part test in Hunt. Respondents do not suggest that SFFA fails Hunt’s test for organizational standing. They argue instead that SFFA cannot invoke organizational standing at all because SFFA was not a genuine membership organization at the time it filed suit. Respondents maintain that, under Hunt, a group qualifies as a genuine membership organization only if it is controlled and funded by its members. In Hunt, this Court determined that a state agency with no traditional members could still qualify as a genuine membership organization in substance because the agency represented the interests of individuals and otherwise satisfied Hunt’s three-part test for organizational standing. See 432 U. S., at 342. Hunt’s “indicia of membership” analysis, however, has no applicability here. As the courts below found, SFFA is indisputably a voluntary membership organization with identifiable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith. SFFA is thus entitled to rely on the organizational standing doctrine as articulated in Hunt. Pp. 6–9.

(b) Proposed by Congress and ratified by the States in the wake of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” Proponents of the Equal Protection Clause described its “foundation[al] principle” as “not permit[ing] any distinctions of law based on race or color.” Any “law which operates upon one man,” they maintained, should “operate equally upon all.” Accordingly, as this Court’s early decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause explained, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States.”

Despite the early recognition of the broad sweep of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court—alongside the country—quickly failed to live up to the Clause’s core commitments. For almost a century after the Civil War, state-mandated segregation was in many parts of the Nation a regrettable norm. This Court played its own role in that ignoble history, allowing in Plessy v. Ferguson the separate but equal regime that would come to deface much of America. 163 U.S. 537.

After Plessy, “American courts . . . labored with the doctrine [of separate but equal] for over half a century.” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 491. Some cases in this period attempted to curtail the perniciousness of the doctrine by emphasizing that it required States to provide black students educational opportunities equal to—even if formally separate from—those enjoyed by white students. See, e.g., Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 349–350. But the inherent folly of that approach—of trying to derive equality from inequality—soon became apparent. As the Court subsequently recognized, even racial distinctions that were argued to have no palpable effect worked to subordinate the afflicted students. See, e.g., McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U.S. 637, 640–642. By 1950, the inevitable truth of the Fourteenth Amendment had thus begun to reemerge: Separate cannot be equal.

The culmination of this approach came finally in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. There, the Court overturned the separate but equal regime established in Plessy and began on the path of invalidating all de jure racial discrimination by the States and Federal Government. The conclusion reached by the Brown Court was unmistakably clear: the right to a public education “must be made available to all on equal terms.” 347 U. S., at 493. The Court reiterated that rule just one year later, holding that “full compliance” with Brown required schools to admit students “on a racially nondiscriminatory basis.” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 300–301.

In the years that followed, Brown’s “fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional,” id., at 298, reached other areas of life—for example, state and local laws requiring segregation in busing, Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (per curiam); racial segregation in the enjoyment of public beaches and bathhouses Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson, 350 U.S. 877 (per curiam); and antimiscegenation laws, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1. These decisions, and others like them, reflect the “core purpose” of the Equal Protection Clause: “do[ing] away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.” Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432.

Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Accordingly, the Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause applies “without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality”—it is “universal in [its] application.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369. For “[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.” Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 289–290.

Any exceptions to the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee must survive a daunting two-step examination known as “strict scrutiny,” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200, 227, which asks first whether the racial classification is used to “further compelling governmental interests,” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 326, and second whether the government’s use of race is “narrowly tailored,” i.e., “necessary,” to achieve that interest, Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 570 U.S. 297, 311–312. Acceptance of race-based state action is rare for a reason: “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 517. Pp. 9–16.

(c) This Court first considered whether a university may make race-based admissions decisions in Bakke, 438 U.S. 265. In a deeply splintered decision that produced six different opinions, Justice Powell’s opinion for himself alone would eventually come to “serv[e] as the touchstone for constitutional analysis of race-conscious admissions policies.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 323. After rejecting three of the University’s four justifications as not sufficiently compelling, Justice Powell turned to its last interest asserted to be compelling—obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a racially diverse student body. Justice Powell found that interest to be “a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education,” which was entitled as a matter of academic freedom “to make its own judgments as to . . . the selection of its student body.” 438 U. S., at 311–312. But a university’s freedom was not unlimited—“[r]acial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect,” Justice Powell explained, and antipathy toward them was deeply “rooted in our Nation’s constitutional and demographic history.” Id., at 291. Accordingly, a university could not employ a two-track quota system with a specific number of seats reserved for individuals from a preferred ethnic group. Id., at 315. Neither still could a university use race to foreclose an individual from all consideration. Id., at 318. Race could only operate as “a ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file,” and even then it had to be weighed in a manner “flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant.” Id., at 317. Pp. 16–19.

(d) For years following Bakke, lower courts struggled to determine whether Justice Powell’s decision was “binding precedent.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 325. Then, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court for the first time “endorse[d] Justice Powell’s view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” Ibid. The Grutter majority’s analysis tracked Justice Powell’s in many respects, including its insistence on limits on how universities may consider race in their admissions programs. Those limits, Grutter explained, were intended to guard against two dangers that all race-based government action portends. The first is the risk that the use of race will devolve into “illegitimate . . . stereotyp[ing].” Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 493 (plurality opinion). Admissions programs could thus not operate on the “belief that minority students always (or even consistently) express some characteristic minority viewpoint on any issue.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 333 (internal quotation marks omitted). The second risk is that race would be used not as a plus, but as a negative—to discriminate against those racial groups that were not the beneficiaries of the race-based preference. A university’s use of race, accordingly, could not occur in a manner that “unduly harm[ed] nonminority applicants.” Id., at 341.

To manage these concerns, Grutter imposed one final limit on race-based admissions programs: At some point, the Court held, they must end. Id., at 342. Recognizing that “[e]nshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend” the Constitution’s unambiguous guarantee of equal protection, the Court expressed its expectation that, in 25 years, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” Id., at 343. Pp. 19–21.

(e) Twenty years have passed since Grutter, with no end to race-based college admissions in sight. But the Court has permitted race-based college admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions: such admissions programs must comply with strict scrutiny, may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and must—at some point—end. Respondents’ admissions systems fail each of these criteria and must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 21–34.

(1) Respondents fail to operate their race-based admissions programs in a manner that is “sufficiently measurable to permit judicial [review]” under the rubric of strict scrutiny. Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 579 U.S. 365, 381. First, the interests that respondents view as compelling cannot be subjected to meaningful judicial review. Those interests include training future leaders, acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, promoting a robust marketplace of ideas, and preparing engaged and productive citizens. While these are commendable goals, they are not sufficiently coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny. It is unclear how courts are supposed to measure any of these goals, or if they could, to know when they have been reached so that racial preferences can end. The elusiveness of respondents’ asserted goals is further illustrated by comparing them to recognized compelling interests. For example, courts can discern whether the temporary racial segregation of inmates will prevent harm to those in the prison, see Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 512–513, but the question whether a particular mix of minority students produces “engaged and productive citizens” or effectively “train[s] future leaders” is standardless.

Second, respondents’ admissions programs fail to articulate a meaningful connection between the means they employ and the goals they pursue. To achieve the educational benefits of diversity, respondents measure the racial composition of their classes using racial categories that are plainly overbroad (expressing, for example, no concern whether South Asian or East Asian students are adequately represented as “Asian”); arbitrary or undefined (the use of the category “Hispanic”); or underinclusive (no category at all for Middle Eastern students). The unclear connection between the goals that respondents seek and the means they employ preclude courts from meaningfully scrutinizing respondents’ admissions programs.

The universities’ main response to these criticisms is “trust us.” They assert that universities are owed deference when using race to benefit some applicants but not others. While this Court has recognized a “tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university’s academic decisions,” it has made clear that deference must exist “within constitutionally prescribed limits.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 328. Respondents have failed to present an exceedingly persuasive justification for separating students on the basis of race that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review, as the Equal Protection Clause requires. Pp. 22–26.

(2) Respondents’ race-based admissions systems also fail to comply with the Equal Protection Clause’s twin commands that race may never be used as a “negative” and that it may not operate as a stereotype. The First Circuit found that Harvard’s consideration of race has resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students. Respondents’ assertion that race is never a negative factor in their admissions programs cannot withstand scrutiny. College admissions are zero-sum, and a benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former at the expense of the latter.

Respondents admissions programs are infirm for a second reason as well: They require stereotyping—the very thing Grutter foreswore. When a university admits students “on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that [students] of a particular race, because of their race, think alike.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911–912. Such stereotyping is contrary to the “core purpose” of the Equal Protection Clause. Palmore, 466 U. S., at 432. Pp. 26–29.

(3) Respondents’ admissions programs also lack a “logical end point” as Grutter required. 539 U. S., at 342. Respondents suggest that the end of race-based admissions programs will occur once meaningful representation and diversity are achieved on college campuses. Such measures of success amount to little more than comparing the racial breakdown of the incoming class and comparing it to some other metric, such as the racial makeup of the previous incoming class or the population in general, to see whether some proportional goal has been reached. The problem with this approach is well established: “[O]utright racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.” Fisher, 570 U. S., at 311. Respondents’ second proffered end point—when students receive the educational benefits of diversity—fares no better. As explained, it is unclear how a court is supposed to determine if or when such goals would be adequately met. Third, respondents suggest the 25-year expectation in Grutter means that race-based preferences must be allowed to continue until at least 2028. The Court’s statement in Grutter, however, reflected only that Court’s expectation that race-based preferences would, by 2028, be unnecessary in the context of racial diversity on college campuses. Finally, respondents argue that the frequent reviews they conduct to determine whether racial preferences are still necessary obviates the need for an end point. But Grutter never suggested that periodic review can make unconstitutional conduct constitutional. Pp. 29–34.

(f) Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. Pp. 39–40.

No. 20–1199, 980 F.3d 157; No. 21–707, 567 F. Supp. 3d 580, reversed.

Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan, J., joined, and in which Jackson, J., joined as it applies to No. 21–707. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion in No. 21–707, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case in No. 20–1199.

Notes

1  Together with No. 21–707, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE

Supreme Court | Cornell Legal Information Institute

Syllabus

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
No. 20–1199, 980 F. 3d 157; No. 21–707, 567 F. Supp. 3d 580, reversed.

• Syllabus [Syllabus] [PDF]

• Opinion, Roberts [Roberts Opinion] [PDF]

• Concurrence, Thomas [Thomas Concurrence] [PDF]

• Concurrence, Gorsuch [Gorsuch Concurrence] [PDF]

• Concurrence, Kavanaugh [Kavanaugh Concurrence] [PDF]

• Dissent, Sotomayor [Sotomayor Dissent] [PDF]

• Dissent, Jackson [Jackson Dissent] [PDF]

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit

No. 20–1199. Argued October 31, 2022—Decided June 29, 20231

SECTION #5 - CLARENCE THOMAS 

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE | Supreme Court | US Law

Justice Thomas, for his part, offers a multitude of arguments for why race-conscious college admissions policies supposedly “burden” racial minorities. Ante, at 39. None of them has any merit.

 He first renews his argument that the use of race in holistic admissions leads to the “inevitable” “underperformance” by Black and Latino students at elite universities “because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete.” Fisher I, 570 U. S., at 332 (concurring opinion). Justice Thomas speaks only for himself. The Court previously declined to adopt this so-called “mismatch” hypothesis for good reason: It was debunked long ago. The decades-old “studies” advanced by the handful of authors upon whom Justice Thomas relies, ante, at 40–41, have “major methodological flaws,” are based on unreliable data, and do not “meet the basic tenets of rigorous social science research.” Brief for Empirical Scholars as Amici Curiae 3, 9–25. By contrast, “[m]any social scientists have studied the impact of elite educational institutions on student outcomes, and have found, among other things, that attending a more selective school is associated with higher graduation rates and higher earnings for [underrepresented minority] students—conclusions directly contrary to mismatch.” Id., at 7–9 (collecting studies). This extensive body of research is supported by the most obvious data point available to this institution today: The three Justices of color on this Court graduated from elite universities and law schools with race- conscious admissions programs, and achieved successful legal careers, despite having different educational backgrounds than their peers. A discredited hypothesis that the Court previously rejected is no reason to overrule precedent.

 Justice Thomas claims that the weight of this evidence is overcome by a single more recent article published in 2016. Ante, at 41, n. 8. That article, however, explains that studies supporting the mismatch hypothesis “yield misleading conclusions,” “overstate the amount of mismatch,” “preclude one from drawing any concrete conclusions,” and rely on methodologically flawed assumptions that “lea[d] to an upwardly-biased estimate of mismatch.” P. Arcidiacono & M. Lovenheim, Affirmative Action and the Quality-Fit Trade-off, 54 J. Econ. Lit. 3, 17, 20 (2016); see id., at 6 (“economists should be very skeptical of the mismatch hypothesis”). Notably, this refutation of the mismatch theory was coauthored by one of SFFA’s experts, as Justice Thomas seems to recognize.

 Citing nothing but his own long-held belief, Justice Thomas also equates affirmative action in higher education with segregation, arguing that “racial preferences in college admissions ‘stamp [Black and Latino students] with a badge of inferiority.’ ” Ante, at 41 (quoting Adarand, 515 U. S., at 241 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)). Studies disprove this sentiment, which echoes “tropes of stigma” that “were employed to oppose Reconstruction policies.” A. Onwuachi-Willig, E. Houh, & M. Campbell, Cracking the Egg: Which Came First—Stigma or Affirmative Action? 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1299, 1323 (2008); see, e.g., id., at 1343–1344 (study of seven law schools showing that stigma results from “racial stereotypes that have attached historically to different groups, regardless of affirmative action’s existence”). Indeed, equating state-sponsored segregation with race-conscious admissions policies that promote racial integration trivializes the harms of segregation and offends Brown’s transformative legacy. School segregation “has a detrimental effect” on Black students by “denoting the inferiority” of “their status in the community” and by “ ‘depriv[ing] them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.’ ” 347 U. S., at 494. In sharp contrast, race-conscious college admissions ensure that higher education is “visibly open to” and “inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 332. These two uses of race are not created equal. They are not “equally objectionable.” Id., at 327.

 Relatedly, Justice Thomas suggests that race-conscious college admissions policies harm racial minorities by increasing affinity-based activities on college campuses. Ante, at 46. Not only is there no evidence of a causal connection between the use of race in college admissions and the supposed rise of those activities, but Justice Thomas points to no evidence that affinity groups cause any harm. Affinity-based activities actually help racial minorities improve their visibility on college campuses and “decreas[e] racial stigma and vulnerability to stereotypes” caused by “conditions of racial isolation” and “tokenization.” U. Jayakumar, Why Are All Black Students Still Sitting Together in the Proverbial College Cafeteria?, Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA (Oct. 2015); see also Brief for Respondent-Students in No. 21–707, p. 42 (collecting student testimony demonstrating that “affinity groups beget important academic and social benefits” for racial minorities); 4 App. in No. 20–1199, at 1591 (Harvard Working Group on Diversity and Inclusion Report) (noting that concerns “that culturally specific spaces or affinity-themed housing will isolate” student minorities are misguided because those spaces allow students “to come together . . . to deal with intellectual, emotional, and social challenges”).

 Citing no evidence, Justice Thomas also suggests that race-conscious admissions programs discriminate against  Asian American students. Ante, at 43–44. It is true that SFFA “allege[d]” that Harvard discriminates against Asian American students. Ante, at 43. Specifically, SFFA argued that Harvard discriminates against Asian American applicants vis-à-vis white applicants through the use of the personal rating, an allegedly “highly subjective” component of the admissions process that is “susceptible to stereotyping and bias.” Harvard II, 980 F. 3d, at 196; see Brief for Professors of Economics as Amici Curiae 24. It is also true, however, that there was a lengthy trial to test those allegations, which SFFA lost. Justice Thomas points to no legal or factual error below, precisely because there is none.

 To begin, this part of SFFA’s discrimination claim does not even fall under the strict scrutiny framework in Grutter and its progeny, which concerns the use of racial classifications. The personal rating is a facially race-neutral component of Harvard’s admissions policy.39 Therefore, even assuming for the sake of argument that Harvard engages in racial discrimination through the personal rating, there is no connection between that rating and the remedy that SFFA sought and that the majority grants today: ending the limited use of race in the entire admissions process. In any event, after assessing the credibility of fact witnesses and considering extensive documentary evidence and expert testimony, the courts below found “no discrimination against Asian Americans.” Harvard II, 980 F. 3d, at 195, n. 34, 202; see id., at 195–204.

 There is no question that the Asian American community continues to struggle against potent and dehumanizing stereotypes in our society. It is precisely because racial discrimination persists in our society, however, that the use of  race in college admissions to achieve racially diverse classes is critical to improving cross-racial understanding and breaking down racial stereotypes. See supra, at 16. Indeed, the record shows that some Asian American applicants are actually “advantaged by Harvard’s use of race,” Harvard II, 980 F. 3d, at 191, and “eliminating consideration of race would significantly disadvantage at least some Asian American applicants,” Harvard I, 397 F. Supp. 3d, at 194. Race-conscious holistic admissions that contextualize the racial identity of each individual allow Asian American applicants “who would be less likely to be admitted without a comprehensive understanding of their background” to explain “the value of their unique background, heritage, and perspective.” Id., at 195. Because the Asian American community is not a monolith, race-conscious holistic admissions allow colleges and universities to “consider the vast differences within [that] community.” AALDEF Brief 4–14. Harvard’s application files show that race-conscious holistic admissions allow Harvard to “valu[e ] the diversity of Asian American applicants’ experiences.” Harvard College Brief 23.

 Moreover, the admission rates of Asian Americans at institutions with race-conscious admissions policies, including at Harvard, have “been steadily increasing for decades.” Harvard II, 980 F. 3d, at 198.40 By contrast, Asian American enrollment declined at elite universities that are prohibited by state law from considering race. See AALDEF Brief 27; Brief for 25 Diverse, California-Focused Bar Associations et al. as Amici Curiae 19–20, 23. At bottom, race-conscious admissions benefit all students, including racial minorities. That includes the Asian American community.

 Finally, Justice Thomas belies reality by suggesting that “experts and elites” with views similar to those “that  motivated Dred Scott and Plessy” are the ones who support race conscious admissions. Ante, at 39. The plethora of young students of color who testified in favor of race-consciousness proves otherwise. See supra, at 46–47; see also infra, at 64–67 (discussing numerous amici from many sectors of society supporting respondents’ policies). Not a single student—let alone any racial minority—affected by the Court’s decision testified in favor of SFFA in these cases.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1199#

Ken Marcus, Zionist Crusader against Human Rights!

Selling the Proposition of Catastrophe of Campus Anti-semitism. Ken Marcus created a business plan built on banishing his hated foes back at somewhat liberal Williams College. He is a hammer ready to bash the head of any Nail daring to speak any criticism of Israeli  warmongering and  Apartheid.

Question RE Zionism and Anti-Semitism

“How is It possible for the two [feminist] factions to claim vehemently, with apparently the same degree of conviction,that, on the one hand - anti-zlonist attacks are only a cover for antisemitism, and on the other hand - that anti-Zionist struggles and struggles against antisemitism complement each other?” - Nira Yuval-Davis, Israeli Feminist Scholar, LINK 1/

“Mr. Marcus let publicly funded schools know that they could no longer justify Israel-bashing that was a mask for Jew hatred,” 

–Susan B. Tuchman, the director of the Center for Law and Justice at the Zionist Organization of America.--- NYT 27 July 2020

Mr. Marcus, who was confirmed to lead the office in June 2018, is perhaps best known for resurrecting a complaint against Rutgers University, in which he unilaterally adopted a disputed definition of anti-Semitism that includes opposition to the state of Israel and asserted the department’s right to treat Judaism as a national origin.---NYT 27 July 2020

Stop the Steal (Land Grab), Stop the Censorship,

Speak Truth, Value Veracity, Be Humble, Be Brave

Contents

Background on Ken Marcus 

LINK to Louis Brandeis Center

Google Doc version of this webpage

⏩KM BIO

⏩KM LinkedIn Profile - Work Experience & Accomplishments Destroying Individual Freedoms!

⏩KM Publications / Interviews

⏩KM@ IHRA Antisemitism Definition as Censorship

⏩KM@ Supreme Court Filings  

⏩Opposing Affirmative Action

⏩@Marcus Protects mal-adapted white-male Christian Supremacists 

⏩KM@ Federalist Society Events

⏩KM@ LawFare - Attacking Human Rights 

Background on Ken Marcus

BIO

Kenneth L. Marcus - Wikipedia

Kenneth Marcus - Washington DC-Baltimore Area | Professional Profile | LinkedIn

Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law - Wikipedia

Ken Marcus, Zionist Crusader against Human Rights!

Marcus LinkedIn Profile - Work Experience

Source: LinkIN

Highlights–

• Attended Williams College, where he was probably ostracized.

• Ditto for Berkeley Law

• Did not make partner at any large law firm

• Switched to more political lobbyng at small firm (boutique, as in small)

• Benefits from Government dole as political appointee for non-Merit-based political appointments 

Summary: Ken Marcus, biblically backed by your friendly Zionist "non-partisan" Bibi-Cancel Culture advocates for Apartheid in America: 

• Objectives: Censor, Suppress, Sanction

• He uses law like a street thug; he’s a bully; a hypocrite; attacking freedom of speech by attempting to use state power to impose his personal CANCEL CULTURE!

• Marcus seeks to Censor, Suppress any criticism of 

• Israeli Policy or any support for Palestinians!

Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School · 

Part-time Jun 2023 - Present · 6 mos

Washington, District of Columbia, United States

Founder & Chair, previously President & General Counsel, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Full-time

Aug 2011 - Present · 12 yrs 4 mos

Washington D.C. Metro Area

• Founded civil & human rights organization to combat anti-Semitism in higher education through research, education and legal advocacy. [REASON FOR EXISTENCE]

• Developed the Louis D. Brandeis Center into a widely-respected nonprofit civil rights organization with chapters at eighteen law schools across the United States. 

• Led board management, strategic planning, fundraising, management and operations, government affairs, communications, and all programs.Founded civil & human rights organization to combat anti-Semitism in higher education through research, education and legal advocacy. 

• Developed the Louis D. Brandeis Center into a widely-respected nonprofit civil rights organization with chapters at eighteen law schools across the United States. Led board management, strategic planning, fundraising, management and operations, government affairs, communications, and all programs.

Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for Liberty & Law, George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School

Part-time Aug 2021 - Present · 2 yrs 4 mos

Aug 2021 - Present · 2 yrs 4 mos Arlington, Virginia, United States

Arlington, Virginia

Visiting Research Professor of Political Science, Yeshiva University

Oct 2020 - Oct 2021 · 1 yr 1 mo

New York, New York

Political Clock  2016-2020 -  Trump & Reactionaries control Senate and Exec  branch

Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education

Jun 2018 - Jul 2020 · 2 yrs 2 mos

Washington D.C. Metro Area

• Served as head of Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Oversaw major government investigations, especially involving sexual harassment, enforcement, policy development, regulatory activity, management and operations.

• Administered Title IX, Title VI, ADA accessibility, Section 504, etc.

• Presidentially nominated and senate-confirmed.Served as head of Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

“He publicly boasted that one of his first acts in office was rescinding Obama-era guidelines on how schools could use affirmative action to increase diversity in their programs.” New York Times 27 July 2020

OUSTED! People in the System Stand up for American Values and rul of law.

America’s outstanding civil servants - aka “deep state”   

Forced to step down due to Corruption, Cronyism, and Abuse of Power

New York Times 27 July 2020–”Two separate complaints that have been filed accuse Mr. Marcus of abusing his authority by forcing through cases that furthered his personal and political agenda. In January, a former lawyer in the Office for Civil Rights said Mr. Marcus forced employees to investigate a policy that allowed transgender athletes in Connecticut to compete on female sports teams, even though the lawyers questioned the merits of the case.

In another complaint filed in May with the department’s inspector general, nine civil rights groups said Mr. Marcus gave preferential treatment to a conservative Zionist group with close personal ties to him when he reopened a settled anti-Semitism case against Rutgers University.

Nominated on a Party-line Vote, a Win-Win for Apartheid & Zionists

Wall Street Journal | 28 July 2018

Political Clock 2008-2016: Out-of-work during Obama Administration- Non-Merit-based political appointments NO LONGER available to anti-civil rights crusaders like Mr. Marcus

!!! RED FLAG–Marcus should NOT have been hired to work for OSCE because of his extreme positions.

Expert Consultant Expert Consultant, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

Apr 2017 - Dec 2017 · 9 mos

Provided Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Department, with expert consultation and drafting for joint "Words Into Action" project in conjunction with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

!!! RED FLAG–Marcus is literally the OPPOSITE of what Ackerman stood for, and is inconsistent with Ackerman focus on increasing Access–NOT denying ACCESS to higher for under-represented minorities–which is Marcus’s goal.

Lillie and Nathan Ackerman Chair in Equality and Justice in America, The City University of New York, Baruch College School of Public Affairs (CUNY)

Jan 2008 - Jan 2011 · 3 yrs 1 mo

• Teach courses in law and public administration; diversity management; and educational administration. Research interests include constitutional, civil rights, civil liberties, administrative, and education law, and law and religion. Congressional testimony. Expert consultant to governmental agencies.

Reference Links of interest: 

Baruch College Presents The Lillie and Nathan Ackerman Lecture Series – CUNY Newswire

baruch.mediaspace.kaltura.com/media/Religion and the Law%3A The virtue of Tolerance/1_1f3yhhfv

Executive Vice President, Director,, Institute for Jewish & Community Research (defunct)  

–founded by hardcore Zionist Gary Tobin

2008 - 2011 · 3 yrs

• Directed initiative on anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in American educational systems, including government relations.

Political Clock 2000-2002, 2003-2008: Marcus secures political appointments during George W. Bush presidency. In November 2002 elections, Republicans secured a majority in the Senate. Consequently, during the third and fourth years of George W. Bush's presidency the 108th Congress, seated between January 2003 to January 2005 enabled George W. to nominate extremists like  Marcus, who is a poster-boy for the heyday of neo-conservatives, neo-Confederates, and reactionary conservatives fighting to roll back individual freedoms. 

!!! RED FLAG–Marcus is literally the OPPOSITE of USCCR’s values.

Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

2004 - 2008 · 4 yrs

Washington DC-Baltimore Area

• Served as administrative head of civil rights agency established in 1957, with responsibility for a wide range of civil rights fact-finding, monitoring and reporting. General leadership in chief executive officer function; general management; strategic planning; operations management; change management; public policy development; programmatic leadership; human resources; budget; financial management; labor relations; board relations; media relations; congressional affairs; audit; chief information officer.

• Appointed by President George W. Bush with concurrence of the Commission.

• Served concurrently as Acting General Counsel (2005-2006). Legal affairs; administrative law; legal compliance; regulatory compliance; equal employment opportunity law.

!!! RED FLAG–Why wasn’t he appointed???? Why did he leave?

Deputy Assistant Secretary - Enforcement, Ass't Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (del. auth.), U.S. Department of Education

2002 - 2004 · 2 yrs

• Served as principal officer for civil rights enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education, overseeing nationwide civil rights compliance by colleges, universities, and public elementary and secondary schools. 

@Marcus Protects mal-adapted white-male Christian Supremacists 

Letter from Dept of Education, Office of Civil Rights

Signed by Ken Marcus, September 13, 2004 | Markups Link | DOE Link

OCR has also recently investigated allegations of race and sex discrimination against white. male Christian students. In one unfortunate incident, a white male undergraduate student was harassed by a professor for expressing conservative Christian views in a classroom discussion regarding homosexuality, Just last year, OCR issued a "Dear Colleague" letter admonishing recipients of federal financial assistance that "schools in regulating the conduct of students and faculty to prevent or redress discrimination must formulate, interpret, and apply their rules in a manner that respects the legal rights of students and faculty, including those court precedents interpreting the concept of free speech." No OCR policy should be construed to permit, much less to require, any form of religious discrimination or any encroachment upon the free exercise of religion. While OCR lacks jurisdiction to prohibit discrimination against students based on religion per se, OCR will aggressively prosecute harassment of religious students who are targeted on the basis of race or gender, as well as racial or gender harassment of students who are targeted on the basis of religion.

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

2001 - 2002 · 1 yr

• Served as principal officer for a federal civil rights agency, responsible for nationwide enforcement of fair housing and fair lending laws, overseeing 50+ field offices, and reporting directly to Secretary and Deputy Secretary of HUD. 

• Supervised departmental equal employment opportunity program. General management; operations management; budget preparation; budget management; human resources; change management; external relations; labor relations; congressional relations; media relations..

Political Clock: Jan 20, 2001, George W. Bush sworn into office of President, and  opening up possible political appointments for DC-based Marcus.  Senate appointments no possible b/c of one-vote working majority of Democratic-caucus durong 107th Congress. Senate control was evenly split 50/50 for the 107th term of congress,  3rd time in history, 

Partner, Holland & Knight   – Major Lobbying firm

Jan 2001 - Nov 2001 · 11 mos

• Commercial and constitutional litigation; financial regulatory contracts litigation; First Amendment. 

Partner, Counsel, Associate, Cooper & Kirk PLLC   [boutique, i.e. did not make Partner at major law firm]

Jan 1998 - Jan 2001 · 3 yrs 1 mo

Washington DC-Baltimore Area

• Commercial and constitutional litigation; financial regulatory contracts litigation; First Amendment; election law. 

Associate, Morrison & Foerster LLP

1996 - 1997 · 1 yr

• Commercial litigation; constitutional litigation; aviation and airports law; financial regulatory litigation; antitrust litigation; intellectual property litigation; legislative counseling; First Amendment; election law.

Associate, Kaye Scholer LLP

1991 - 1996 · 5 yrs

• Commercial litigation; constitutional litigation; environmental litigation; securities litigation; real estate litigation; legislative counseling; national security clearance law; media law; environmental law; international taxation.

Education

University of California, Berkeley - School of Law

J.D., Law

Williams College

B.A., Moral and Political Philosophy

Observations

[leaves major law firm, did not make Partner at major law firm after 6 years]

1998: First Amendment;

1996: First Amendment; election law

1991: national security clearance; Commercial litigation; constitutional litigation; environmental litigation; securities litigation; real estate litigation; legislative counseling;

Marcus Topic: Dividing Jews even more

What happens when you agree with education nominee on Israel, but not sexual harassment reporting

Ron Kampeas

jta.org

WASHINGTON (JTA) — If there’s overlap between Hillel and the National Council of Jewish Women, it’s in two areas: defending Israel and combating violence against women on campus.

Leaders of the campus Jewish organization took a look at the record of Kenneth Marcus, President Donald Trump’s nominee to run civil rights at the Department of Education, and liked what they saw. NCJW leaders decidedly did not.

Now the groups are on the opposite sides of a nomination that has set off a quiet intra-Jewish argument over what matters more: the hostilities that some Jewish students on campuses say they face for their pro-Israel activity, or the Trump administration rollbacks of Obama-era protections for female students who allege sexual harassment.

Kenneth Marcus, the founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, has been at the forefront of efforts to counter pro-BDS activity on campus. He led efforts to get states and federal governments and universities to recognize a definition of anti-Semitism that includes hostility toward Israel.

“Hillel has worked closely with Kenneth Marcus on issues related to anti-Semitic activity and anti-Israel activity on college campuses,” Hillel International said in a statement to JTA. “He has been an excellent partner and collaborative leader on these issues of critical importance to Jewish students. In our experience, he has been a supporter of Hillel’s pluralistic, inclusive values and a leader in fighting discrimination in an analytical and impartial manner.”

Hillel would not address Marcus’ views on federal policy and sexual harassment. Marcus endorses the decision by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to remove the Obama-era guidelines that advocates said made it easier for victims to level sexual assault charges on campus. The guidelines discouraged universities from allowing an alleged assaulter to directly cross-examine his accuser, and discouraged what until then was the common practice of requiring that the accused and the accuser first attempt to resolve the issue face to face or through mediation.

As leverage, the Obama administration made the rules under Title IX, a law that prohibits federal funding for schools that allow discrimination against women.

Feminists said that before the Obama guidelines, the process revictimized assault victims. DeVos has said that Obama’s rules instead made victims of the accused.

That was the nomination killer for the NCJW, said Faith Williams, the group’s senior legislative associate.

“In light of growing number of #MeToo moments and the scandal at Michigan State University, we need these Title IX protections,” she said, referring to the explosion of sexual assault allegations by women and the recent conviction of a sports therapist at the university who was accused of assaulting nearly 200 women in his care.

Also opposing the Marcus nomination is Jewish Women International, which has developed programs in partnership with Jewish fraternities and sororities to counter sexual assault on campus.

“We are deeply concerned by the answers given during his confirmation hearing last week supporting Secretary DeVos’ rescission of important guidance clarifying the responsibilities of colleges and universities in cases of sexual assault,” Jewish Women International said in a statement last month.

“It is very troubling that he will not commit to continuing to publish the list of colleges and universities currently under investigation regarding sexual assault,” the statement said. “These actions demonstrate a lack of commitment to protecting students from sex discrimination as is required under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as well as turn back the clock on the advances made during the previous administration to ensure greater transparency and accountability on this issue.”

Holla @ Hillel against Women

Hillel has been at the forefront within the community of advancing protections for women on campuses. The group recently made headlines when it backed a Hillel director in Portland, Oregon, who reported that a donor had harassed her; Hillel cut off the donor. In 2016, it suspended a U.S. tour by Israeli author Ari Shavit when he was accused of sexual assault.

Announcing a review last month aimed at enhancing its sexual harassment and assault policies, the group said that “Hillel has long stood up against rape culture on campus, partnering with It’s On Us nationally, and supporting students through incidents of sexual harassment and assault.”

Democrats, Women Yes, Palestinians No comment

It’s On Us, a national campaign combating campus sexual assault, ran an ad that featured former Vice President Joe Biden speaking out against DeVos’ proposed changes.

In fact, most of the Democratic opposition to Marcus was focused on the sexual assault issue. Some pro-Palestinian groups have made an issue of his anti-BDS activity, but the issue did not come up once in hours of hearings on Dec. 5. The Health and Education Committee’s chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., did read from a letter from Hillel endorsing Marcus at the hearing’s outset.

Among the other issues raised by Democrats were Marcus’ view that the department should only target bias when intent is in evidence, and his past comments opposing LGBTQ rights. (He said he has “evolved” on the LGBTQ issue.)

The committee approved Marcus on party lines, and he is likely to be approved by the full Senate, also on party lines.

An Attack against Apartheid is an Attack Against the AJC, ZOA, and the rest

The American Jewish Committee also has recommended Marcus, despite whatever differences it may have with him on an array of other issues. Its general counsel, Marc Stern, said in an interview that even if Marcus’ pro-Israel record did not come up in the hearing, it has become enough of an issue — The New York Times made pro-Palestinian opposition to Marcus a focus of a story on his nomination — that it is incumbent on pro-Israel groups to rally to his defense.

“It’s our perception that this has become a fight over Israel,” Stern said. “If you take the view that Israel criticism is sometimes anti-Semitic and that’s disqualifying, pro-Israel groups have a hard interest in seeing that it is not disqualifying.”

AJC’s endorsement of Marcus came in the wake of opposition to the nomination by an umbrella body AJC helped found, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Among its objections to Marcus, the Leadership Conference included an allusion to his anti-BDS activism, which civil libertarians say infringes on free speech.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper–Wtf? Simon Wiesenthal 

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said his group might also oppose Marcus on discrete issues, but his position at the forefront of a signature issue for the center — advancing a definition of anti-Semitism that includes some anti-Israel postures — made endorsing him a no-brainer.

“The problems that we have with the history of the [Education Department’s] civil rights division is its failure to in any way, shape or form take seriously kids when they come with complaints of anti-Semitism,” Cooper said in an interview. “Ken Marcus is uniquely qualified to fill that gap.”

Marcus’ extensive experience combating anti-Semitism also led to his endorsement by B’nai B’rith International.

“We’ve communicated with Education Department officials in recent years and had to spend a certain amount of time explaining the problem, identifying manifestations of anti-Semitism and explaining that some things they see as political dispute” are anti-Semitism, said Eric Fusfield, the group’s director of legislative affairs. “With Ken Marcus, there’s no need to have that discussion because he authored the book on anti-Semitism.”

(Notably, Jewish Women International, which is an offshoot of B’nai B’rith, has joined with another offshoot, BBYO, in developing anti-harassment programs.)

Marcus is a conservative; he worked in similar civil rights capacities for the George W. Bush administration. An array of right-wing Jewish groups wrote to the committee urging his nomination, among them the Zionist Organization of America, Americans for a Safe Israel and CAMERA.

Decades ago, conservative or liberal credentials would not be a barrier to bipartisan approval. Lawmakers once agreed that a Democratic or a Republican president’s choices should be considered based on their qualifications and only in rare instances ideology. In those days, the AJC’s Stern said, opposition to school integration might disqualify a candidate, but little short of that.

The officials at centrist groups that have endorsed Marcus, like the AJC, the Wiesenthal Center and B’nai B’rith, decried the polarization that frustrated their efforts to increase bipartisan support for Marcus. (The Anti-Defamation League declined multiple requests for comment on the Marcus nomination.) Stern likened liberal opposition to Marcus to a conservative swell against Trump’s decision to extend the appointment of Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Feldblum, who is gay, angered the right by backing LGBTQ anti-discrimination measures.

The NCJW’s Williams said coalitions matter and sometimes one heeded allies in decrying what they see as an assault on basic rights.

“As a civil rights community we stand together,” she said. “It is not enough that Marcus would protect the civil rights of one community and not another.”

What happens when you agree with education nominee on Israel, but not sexual harassment reporting - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

SWC’s Rabbi Abraham Cooper Appointed to U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom

June 10, 2022

The Simon Wiesenthal Center welcomes Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s appointment of Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Center’s Associate Dean and Director of Global Social Action, to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). USCIRF welcomed the newly appointed Commissioners who will be instrumental in continuing the promotion of religious freedom abroad.

As an acknowledged expert on online hate and anti-Semitism, Rabbi Cooper has a distinguished career defending the rights of the Jewish people, combating terrorism, and promoting multi-faith relations worldwide.

“I’m honored to serve alongside my six other fellow commissioners on this prestigious commission. It is a great honor for me and all of my colleagues at the Simon Wiesenthal Center who devote their lives in pursuit of a better world for all," said Rabbi Cooper. “I look forward to working together to expand and promote religious freedom around the globe,” he added.

USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by the President and leadership of both political parties in the Senate and House of Representatives.

For further information, please email Michele Alkin, Director of Global Communications at malkin@wiesenthal.com, 310-739-8063 or Shawn Rodgers at srodgers@wiesenthal.com, join the Center on Facebook,or follow @simonwiesenthalfor news updates sent directly to your Twitter feed.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States. It is an NGO at international agencies including the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, the OAS, the Council of Europe and the Latin American Parliament (Parlatino).

From <https://www.wiesenthal.com/about/news/swcs-rabbi-abraham-cooper.html>

Commissioners: Advocates for Religious Freedom | USCIRF

➤Return to Top of Page

KEN MARCUS: PROSECUTING PEOPLE USING IHRA DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM

#4 Podcast-How IHRA Helps Prosecute Palestinian supporters and Suppress American values of free speech, pluralism, and academic freedom. 

Double-Speak–Kenneth Marcus on How the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism Helps the Government Protect Civil Rights

The Tikvah Podcast
Kenneth Marcus on How the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism Helps the Government Protect Civil Rights (The Tikvah Podcast) - Brandeis Center

With anti-Semitism on the rise over the last few years, it is essential for institutions to be able to assess clearly whether an incident is anti-Semitic or not. For this purpose, over the last two decades many governments, companies, and international organizations have, as Joshua Muravchik discusses in this month’s Mosaic essay, adopted the “working definition of anti-Semitism” from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Today, the U.S. federal government uses the IHRA definition to assess federal claims of anti-Semitism under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and all government agencies also consider the IHRA definition in their own assessments of anti-Semitism. This week, Kenneth Marcus, who was instrumental in getting the federal government to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, joins our podcast. Formerly the assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education, Marcus has played a major role in protecting the civil rights of diverse groups, including Jews facing anti-Semitism; he’s also the author of Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America, and The Definition of Anti-Semitism. In conversation with Mosaic’s editor Jonathan Silver, he explains how the IHRA definition helps American officials protect civil rights. Musical selections in this podcast are drawn from the Quintet for Clarinet and Strings, op. 31a, composed by Paul Ben-Haim and performed by the ARC Ensemble.

Listen on Apple Podcasts: The Tikvah Podcast on Apple Podcasts

Kenneth Marcus on How the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism Helps the Government Protect Civil Rights (The Tikvah Podcast) - Brandeis Center

➤Return to top of page

#5 Marcus wants to Prosecute, Punish & Sanction any Dissent, any support of Palestinians, and any criticism of Israel 

The Definition of Antisemitism Kenneth L. Marcus* 

The Definition of Antisemitism

KENNETH L. MARCUS’S IHRA DEFINITION VIEWS REFERENCED IN PODCAST

DISCUSSION ABOUT ANTI-SEMITISM [aka Criticizing Apartheid and other policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu]

Kenneth L. Marcus’s IHRA Definition Views Referenced in Podcast Discussion about anti-Semitism - Brandeis Center

Host John Podhoretz mentioned that any enshrined definition of anti-Semitism allows anti-Semitic individuals to successfully discriminate against Jews by maneuvering around the definition. In response, guest Tevi Troy noted that: 

“From a philosophical perspective, that makes sense. But our friend Ken Marcus has written about this issue, and he’s worked at the [U.S.] Department of Education, and he says [that] without a definition, the bureaucrats at the Department of Education, the people that enforce the laws against discrimination, they cannot pursue cases of discrimination. They just let it lie there, because they say they don’t know how to address it. 

So if you want to have the federal government go after people who are anti-Semitic or have the federal government stop spending money on anti-Semitic programs, or if you want to have the federal government say that there are things that are forbidden, you need to have some kind of definition. And if you’re going to have definitions, I’d rather have the IHRA Definition…over this very mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy Nexus definition.” 

 d

Host John Podhoretz mentioned that any enshrined definition of anti-Semitism allows anti-Semitic individuals to successfully discriminate against Jews by maneuvering around the definition. In response, guest Tevi Troy noted that: “From a philosophical perspective, that makes sense. But our friend Ken Marcus has written about this issue, and he’s worked at the [U.S.] Department of Education, and he says [that] without a definition, the bureaucrats at the Department of Education, the people that enforce the laws against discrimination, they cannot pursue cases of discrimination. They just let it lie there, because they say the don’t know how to address it. So if you want to have the federal government go after people who are anti-Semitic or have the federal government stop spending money on anti-Semitic programs, of if you want to have the federal government say that there are things that are forbidden, you need to have some kind of definition. And if you’re going to have definitions, I’d rather have the IHRA Definition…over this very mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy Nexus definition.” 

https://brandeiscenter.com/kenneth-marcus-on-how-the-

➤Return to top of page

Marcus's Lifetime of Peddling Counterfeit Claims of Anti-Semitism.

Israel advocacy - Founding of LBC

Anti-Homeless, Pro Protestors AGAINST Fair Housing. Early in his career, Marcus served as lead counsel for the Berkeley Three, three neighbors in Berkeley, California who had protested against a planned low-income housing project for the homeless in their neighborhood in 1993 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A housing rights group complained about the protests and four federal HUD officials began investigating the neighbors. The neighbors, represented by Marcus and the Center for Individual Rights, sued the officials alleging that the investigation had violated their First Amendment rights.

In 2011, Marcus founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law to "advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all."

TRUMP APPOINTEE: 

Kenneth L. Marcus is an American attorney, academic, and government official. He is the founder and leader of the Brandeis Center. He was the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education from August 6, 2018 through July 9, 2020, after which he resumed his position at the Brandeis Center.[1]

Marcus previously served as the Lillie and Nathan Ackerman Chair in Equality and Justice in America at Baruch College in New York. He also previously served as staff director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights (OCR).[2]

Misusing Civil Rights Act to Suppress Civl Rights. In 2012, he was featured on The Forward's "Forward 50" list of 50 American Jews who made a significant impact on the Jewish story in the past year. The magazine characterized him as "a former staff director at the U.S. Department of Education, Marcus, 46, has emerged as a vocal proponent of using federal civil rights law to combat perceived campus anti-Semitism in the context of the Israel debate" and mentioned his use of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to counter campus anti-Semitism.[15]

Opposes bds on bogus grounds. Marcus opposes the BDS movement that calls for comprehensive boycotts against Israel, similar to those imposed on South Africa during the Apartheid era. He believes that BDS is an attempt to "resist the normalization of the Jewish people." However, determining whether BDS is anti-Semitic is a difficult question to answer, according to Marcus.[16] He has therefore developed a list of criteria to determine when, in his opinion, BDS becomes anti-Semitic. The list includes examples such as unconscious hostility towards Jews, and the transmission of negatively coded cultural myths.[16]

Excerpt from Souce: Kenneth L. Marcus - Wikipedia

#1 Marcus Driving the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act

“The Ken Marcus & Jonathan Greenblatt Suppress Faculty and Student Speech Act of [202x]

Source: Wikipedia

The IHRA Implementation ACT, aka Anti-Semitism Awareness Act - LDB is a strong supporter of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a controversial piece of legislation introduced to the US Congress in 2016 which requires the Department of Education to use a specific definition of antisemitism when "reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[30][31]

#2 “DoubleSpeak” Human Rights- Louis Brandeis Center for Human Rights, founded by Ken Marcus

BIO for Kenneth L. Marcus, Esq.

Founder and Chairman

Washington, DC

Kenneth L. Marcus, Esq - Brandeis Center

Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law; Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Center for Liberty & Law at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School; and author of The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press) and Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America (Cambridge University Press).

During his public service career, Marcus served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights; Staff Director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and General Deputy Assistant U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

In academia, 

• he formerly held the Lillie and Nathan Ackerman Chair in Equality and Justice in America at the City University of New York’s Bernard M. Baruch College School of Public Affairs [How the hell did Marcus get this Chair–he is the opposite!!!]  and

• Served as Visiting Research Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University. 

• He is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism and previously served as Associate Editor of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism.\

• Earlier in his career, Mr. Marcus was a litigation partner in two major law firms, where he conducted complex commercial and constitutional litigation. 

• He also currently chairs the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Civil Rights Practice Group [aka ANTI CIVIL RIGHTS].

He has published widely in academic journals as well as in more popular venues such as The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Newsweek, USA Today, and Politico.  Mr. Marcus is a graduate of Williams College, magna cum laude, and the University of California at Berkeley School of Law.

Kenneth L. Marcus, Esq - Brandeis Center

#3 The Louis Brandeis Center (LBC) Anti-Human Rights / Anti-Affirmative Action Agency,

Source | Wikipedia | Louis Brandeis company website

Founded by Ken Marcus

Metasticing Hate & Censorship across Campuses nationwide. LDB Law student chapters In 2013, LDB established law student chapters at several law schools in the US. The purpose of these chapters is to foster "a new generation of leaders who share LDB's mission" which includes combating antisemitism and anti-Israelism and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in particular.[12][13] BDS is a pro-Palestinian organization that calls for comprehensive international boycotts of Israel similar to those that was imposed on South Africa.[14] Since its founding in 2005, BDS has been active on American campuses and found some success there. According to LDB lawyer Danit Sibovits, the chapters seek to "engage law students in civil rights work and engage them in public advocacy" and provide "an opportunity for law students to gain practical legal experience while they are still in school."[12] Speakers may address topics such as Jewish civil rights advocacy, campus antisemitism, international human rights law, Israel legal advocacy, counter-terrorism legal policy. 

MARCUS’s Jihad against BDS—LAWfare–JIGSAW Fellows The Jigsaw Initiative is a program run by LDB that trains a specialized group of law students in using legal tools and skills to combat antisemitism and BDS on college campuses.[18][19] JIGSAW stands for Justice Initiative Guiding Student Activists Worldwide and the JIGSAW Fellows are taught to fight against antisemitic incidents on campus by utilizing university policies, and federal and state law. They are trained to act as mentors to undergraduate students in helping them confront antisemitism and BDS on campus.[20]

MARCUS’s Jihad against BDS—LAWfare–LDB has been involved in numerous lawsuits involving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and campus life. Its critics claims that the organization engages in lawfare on Israel's behalf—lawsuits and threats of lawsuits intended to silence criticism of Israel.[28][29]

Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law - Wikipedia

LBC Board of Directors

• Alyza D. Lewin, 

• Adam S. Feuerstein, 

• Richard Cravatts,

• Tevi Troy, 

• L. Rachel Lerman[3]

LBC Board president: Alyza D. Lewin

President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (“LDB”)

Alyza D. Lewin, 

BDS on Ben & Jerry’s. Ms. Lewin led the litigation team that represented Avi Zinger, the Israeli licensee of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, in the lawsuit that Mr. Zinger filed against Unilever to prevent Ben & Jerry’s boycott of Israel. Ms. Lewin negotiated a successful resolution to that matter pursuant to which Avi Zinger obtained the right in perpetuity to sell Ben & Jerry’s ice cream everywhere in Israel and the territories using the Hebrew and Arabic logos.

Ms. Lewin began her law career in Israel where she clerked on the Supreme Court for Deputy President Justice Menachem Elon. Ms. Lewin served as President of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (“AAJLJ”) from 2012 – 2017. In January 2020, Ms. Lewin was awarded the AAJLJ’s distinguished Pursuit of Justice Award.  In December 2022, Alyza was named by the Algemeiner to their J100 – as one of the “Top 100 people positively influencing Jewish Life.”

Ms. Lewin received her B.A. from Princeton University and a J.D. from New York University School of Law. Ms. Lewin has also been trained as a mediator by the American Arbitration Association and the Center for Dispute Settlement.

Ms. Lewin is married and has four children.

In Internal Memo, American Jewish Committee Blasts Op-Ed on “Jewish-Free Zones” at Berkeley Law

The group’s disavowal of an article written by Israel advocate Kenneth Marcus revealed tension over the best strategy to combat campus Palestine activism.

In Internal Memo, American Jewish Committee Blasts Op-Ed on “Jewish-Free Zones” at Berkeley Law

Mari Cohen and Alex Kane

October 14, 2022

On September 28th, prominent Israel advocate Kenneth Marcus published an op-ed in the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal that quickly grabbed national attention. The op-ed accused the University of California Berkeley School of Law of maintaining what Marcus—the former assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education and founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, an Israel-advocacy legal group—called “Jewish-free zones.” In fact, no such zones existed; Marcus was referring to the fact that nine student groups at the law school, responding to a campaign by the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter, had adopted a new bylaw pledging not to invite speakers who support Zionism. In the widely circulated piece, Marcus argued that this policy amounts to “target[ing] Jewish Americans directly” and that “using ‘Zionist’ as a euphemism for Jew is nothing more than a confidence trick.”

Bullying

Other Israel-advocacy groups, like the American Jewish Committee (AJC), appeared to share Marcus’s desire to condemn Berkeley. In an October 3rd open letter published in the Jewish Journal, the AJC joined 39 “pro-Israel” groups, including Marcus’s Brandeis Center, in demanding that Berkeley sanction the student groups if they did not rescind the bylaw. At least one AJC chapter, in Seattle, shared Marcus’s piece on its Facebook page.

But behind the scenes, the AJC was critical of Marcus’s tactics. In a confidential internal memo obtained by Jewish Currents, Sara Coodin, the AJC’s director of academic affairs, wrote that Marcus’s op-ed’s “central claim was inflammatory, resulting in a distorted picture of both this incident and the overall climate for Jewish students on campus.” Through its own meetings with Berkeley students and professors, Coodin wrote, the AJC had learned that “conversations on campus have had a less contentious tone than those taking place in the wider American Jewish community”; she highlighted a Jewish News of Northern California op-ed by Berkeley Israel studies professor Ron Hassner and history professor Ethan Katz arguing that Jewish student life and Israel studies programming at Berkeley is “thriving.” Still, Coodin said that if other university chapters introduce similar campaigns encouraging clubs to bar Zioinst speakers, the AJC plans to combat them. (Coodin and the AJC did not respond to requests for comment on the memo by press time, nor did Marcus.)

The AJC’s internal disavowal of the Marcus op-ed illustrates a strategic tension that exists even among Israel-advocacy groups that broadly share the goals of combatting Palestine activism on US campuses. While hardline groups like Marcus’s Brandeis Center condemn US colleges as bastions of Jew-hatred and seek to punish them with civil rights claims on behalf of Jewish students, organizations like the AJC tend to employ a softer touch, and are more willing to work with universities. “There’s a long-running debate” among Jewish organizations over “what strategy is best: whether you should work more quietly and work with those on campus, or whether you should use a more confrontational approach with the potential threat of lawsuits,” said Dov Waxman, director of the UCLA Y&S Nazarian Center for Israel Studies and author of Trouble in the Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict over Israel. “The AJC’s advocacy model has always been quiet diplomacy.”

In August, nine Berkeley Law student groups—including the Muslim Student Association, the Queer Caucus, and Women of Berkeley Law—voted to adopt a bylaw that endorsed boycotts and sanctions of entities complicit in Israel’s apartheid system and also promised not to invite speakers who support “Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

•  The bylaw language was written and advocated for by the law school’s SJP chapter, which, on its Instagram page, applauded the groups for “refusing to be complicit in Israeli apartheid.” In a follow-up post addressing the backlash, the group said it will “continue to invite student organizations to democratically adopt the bylaw.”

• “It’s a solidarity-building tool. That’s part of why this agitated so many people on campus and beyond,” said Liz Jackson, a staff attorney at Palestine Legal, a group that defends the free speech rights of Palestine activists in the US. 

• “It takes the issue of Palestine from a niche or isolated issue, and makes it a cross-movement cause.” Jackson defended the rights of student groups to adopt such bylaws. “A political organization can lay out its political commitment,” she said. 

• In fact, Jackson noted, it’s a similar move to one made by Hillel International, which has specific policies that prevent the organization’s campus chapters from hosting anti-Zionist speakers. 

• “Students have a right, if they are part of an organization, to not invite speakers that are complicit in any way with oppression of Palestinian people,” said a Berkeley Law SJP member who asked to remain anonymous due to concerns about facing harassment. “It’s similar to student groups that have a clear policy that they will not invite white supremacists.” 

• The SJP member also noted that the bylaw places no restrictions on the views of students who join the clubs or attend their events—only invited speakers.

Indeed, even some commenters who say they disagree with barring Zionist speakers have defended the groups’ right to do so. “Ultimately, it is their right to make these decisions that I think are wrongheaded,” said Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, who served as director of the AJC’s division on antisemitism and extremism until 2014. “There are some Jewish students who are supporting the pro-Palestinian positon and say their Judaism leads them to an anti-Zionist position. Who am I to say that that’s not legitimate?”

While the action of the nine student groups received some coverage in the Jewish press, and Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky emailed students to say the group’s adoption of the bylaw was “troubling,” it otherwise received little attention until Marcus published his op-ed.

The singer Barbra Streisand and comedian Sarah Silverman tweeted the piece, Senator Ted Cruz called the actions of the student groups “disgraceful,” New York Congressman Ritchie Torres denounced the bylaw as “an example of how anti-Zionism in policy translates into antisemitism in practice,” and Fox News ran a segment interviewing Marcus. 

Dean Chemerinsky responded to Marcus’s piece in The Daily Beast, disputing Marcus’s characterization of “Jewish-free zones” but also saying that groups that excluded speakers because of their Israel views would be “subject to sanction.”

The increased scrutiny has heightened tensions on campus. The AJC memo noted that a Jewish Berkeley student who had previously served as an AJC fellow told an AJC staffer that Marcus’s op-ed had made the controversy “less of a local issue and more of a national one.” 

The student also told the AJC that the groups’ new bylaw had not extensively changed students’ experiences on campus, and that the groups in question already had little involvement with pro-Israel students or speakers. Meanwhile, the SJP member who spoke with Jewish Currents noted that, while bylaw-supporting student organizations have faced harassment and are concerned by the dean’s threat to sanction them, the visibility has also bolstered their campaign: In the past month, five more clubs have adopted the bylaw, bringing the total to 14.

Bullying

The AJC memo highlighted concerns that emphasizing alleged antisemitic threats on campuses might inadvertently threaten recent successes for campus Israel advocates. Coodin reported that staff had spoken with “two Berkeley faculty members, founders of Berkeley’s Israel Studies program” who were concerned that media coverage of Berkeley could lead to a “divestment” response from the Jewish community. Instead, the AJC said, the professors hoped the AJC would support Berkeley’s Jewish and Israel education programs. (Jewish Currents has reported that over the past two decades, some donors and advocates have seen funding Israel studies academic programs as a key tool for countering Palestine solidarity activism on campuses; today, such advocates view Berkeley’s Israel studies institute, which hosts visiting Israeli scholars and offers students fellowships to create courses and events, as a gold-standard program.) Coodin wrote in the memo that the AJC plans to move forward in ways that “resist damaging productive existing initiatives at Berkeley.”

Marcus a little thug - LawFare Title VI, Abusing Law against spirit of Law.

Marcus, for his part, has taken a far more pugnacious approach, hinting that he may file a civil rights complaint with the Department of Education if UC Berkeley doesn’t take stronger action against the student groups that passed the bylaw. The filing of civil rights complaints using Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is a strategy that Marcus himself pioneered. Such complaints—which typically claim that certain forms of Palestine solidarity activism create a hostile environment for Jewish students, and that university administrators have not taken effective action against such activism—seek to trigger federal investigations into schools’ compliance with Title VI, which prohibits federal funding of universities that discriminate against protected minority groups. 

Marcus and his allies have filed scores of complaints since 2004, when Marcus—at the time an assistant secretary with the DOE—announced new guidance proclaiming that the department’s Office of Civil Rights would “aggressively prosecute” Title VI cases involving Jewish students, as well as those involving Arabs and Muslims, among others. Marcus’s strategy was bolstered in 2019, when, while he once again worked in the DOE as an assistant secretary for civil rights, President Donald Trump issued an executive order encouraging federal agencies to use the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition—which classifies some types of anti-Zionist speech as antisemitic—as a guide for adjudicating Title VI complaints. (The order remains in place.)

The strategy has a mixed record: While it has not triggered any federal funding cutoffs, the civil rights lawsuits attract widespread media attention regardless of their merit, and have also resulted in settlements with universities that have agreed to clarify anti-discrimination policies and conduct outreach and training on antisemitism to students and faculty. But the strategy has been controversial among mainstream Jewish groups. 

• In 2010, the AJC joined a wide swath of Jewish organizations in writing to then-Education Secretary Arne Duncan, requesting that he issue new guidelines to again affirm Title VI protections for Jewish college students. But in April 2011, Stern, who was then the AJC’s director on antisemitism and extremism, issued a joint statement with the president of the American Association of University Professors saying that some Jewish groups were abusing Title VI “to silence anti-Israel discourse and speakers,” an approach that is both “unwarranted” and “dangerous.” 

• The AJC statement drew criticism from hardline groups like the Zionist Organization of America, which said the AJC was “minimizing the problems” faced by Jewish students. Four months later, The Forward reported that AJC Executive Director David Harris had written an email apologizing to a Stern critic for releasing the statement, saying it was “ill-advised.” 

• Marcus wrote a Forward op-ed applauding Harris for repudiating the statement. Today, the AJC no longer publicly criticizes Title VI civil rights complaints: A 2018 AJC statement urging the Senate to confirm Marcus to his Trump administration DOE post says the group has long “maintained that expressions and actions related to criticism of Israel can create a hostile environment actionable under Title VI.” But Title VI advocacy is not a central plank of the group’s strategy.

Even if Marcus and the AJC differ on the correct strategy to combat Palestinian rights activism on campus, they agree on the goal of countering SJP efforts. The AJC’s memo said the group planned on devising “ways to strategically combat ‘copycat’ SJP initiatives elsewhere” and that it hoped to employ “intelligent strategy *and* strategic partnerships with existing faculty, administrators, and students on campus” to oppose such bylaw campaigns. “What is at the core of this is that Palestinians advocating for their rights—the right to liberation—and Palestinians being actively and publicly Palestinian is taken as a direct threat to Jewish identity,” said Sarah Anne Minkin, director of programs & partnerships at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. “The AJC and the Brandeis Center are falling on the same side of that.”

Liz Jackson of Palestine Legal said that each strategy poses a distinct challenge to Palestinian rights advocates. “The public strategy spreads disinformation through headlines, and retweets from Barbra Streisand,” she said. “The backchannel maneuvering gets through to university administrators to twist the facts and to erase the context, which is Palestinian students’ concern about their families’ basic freedoms.”

In Internal Memo, American Jewish Committee Blasts Op-Ed on “Jewish-Free Zones” at Berkeley Law

➤Return to Top of Page

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones-Jewish Journal

After we published this op-ed by Kenneth Marcus, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley School of Law, sent us a response. You can read it below, followed by a response from Marcus.

September 28, 2022  LINK to article

If it wasn’t so frightening, one might be able to recognize the irony in the sight of campus progressives trying so hard to signal progressive virtue that they fall victim to a deeper moral shame.

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism. And these are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus. Berkeley Law’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he himself would be banned under this standard, as would 90% of his Jewish students.

It is now a century since Jewish-free zones first spread to the San Francisco Bay Area (“No Dogs. No Jews”). Nevertheless, this move seems frightening and unexpected, like a bang on the door in the night.

Berkeley law students are not the first to exclude Zionists. At the State University of New York at New Paltz, activists drove two sexual assault victims out of a survivor group for being Zionists. At the University of Southern California, they drove Jewish student government vice president Rose Ritch out of office, threatening to “impeach [her] Zionist ass.” At Tufts, they tried to oust student judiciary committee member Max Price from the student government judiciary committee because of his support for Israel.

These exclusions reflect the changing face of campus antisemitism. The highest profile incidents are no longer just about toxic speech, which poisons the campus environment.

Now anti-Zionist groups target Jewish Americans directly.

Anti-Zionism is flatly antisemitic. Using “Zionist” as a euphemism for Jew is nothing more than a confidence trick. Like other forms of Judeophobia, it is an ideology of hate, treating Israel as the “collective Jew” and smearing the Jewish state with defamations similar to those used for centuries to vilify individual Jews. This ideology establishes a conspiratorial worldview, sometimes including replacement theory, which has occasionally erupted in violence, including mass-shooting, in recent months. Moreover, Zionism is an integral aspect of the identity of many Jews. Its derogation is analogous, in this way, to other forms of hate and bigotry.

Some commentators defend these exclusions on speech grounds, arguing that “groups also have a right to be selective, to set their own rules for membership.” They are wrong about this. As Dean Chemerinsky explains, the free speech arguments run in the other direction: Berkeley’s anti-Zionist bylaws limit the free speech of Zionist students.

Discriminatory conduct, including anti-Zionist exclusions, is not protected as free speech. While hate speech is often constitutionally protected, such conduct may violate a host of civil rights laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not always the case that student groups have the right to exclude members in ways that reflect hate and bigotry. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of another Bay Area University of California law school, Hastings College of the Law, to require student groups to accept all students regardless of status or beliefs. Specifically, the Court blessed Hastings’ decision to require Christian groups to accept gay members.

Discriminatory conduct, including anti-Zionist exclusions, is not protected as free speech.

Putting legal precedents aside, major universities generally require student groups to accept “all comers,” regardless of “status of beliefs.” They also adopt rules, aligned with federal and state law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of various classifications such as race, ethnicity, heritage or religion. Those who adopt such rules may not exclude Jews from these protections.

The real issue here is discrimination, not speech. By adopting anti-Jewish bylaw provisions, these groups are restricting their successors from cooperating with pro-Israel speakers and groups. In this way, the exclusionary bylaws operate like racially restrictive covenants, precluding minority participation into perpetuity.

Universities should not have to be legally compelled to do what is obviously right. Anti-Zionist policies would still be monstrously immoral, even if they were not also unlawful. The students should be ashamed of themselves. As should grownups who stand quietly by or mutter meekly about free speech as university spaces go as the Nazis’ infamous call, judenfrei. Jewish-free.

Response from Dean Chemerinsky:

Kenneth L. Marcus’ article, “Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones,” paints a misleading picture of what happened at Berkeley Law.  There is no “Jewish-Free Zone” at Berkeley Law or on the Berkeley campus.  Indeed, as Mr. Marcus advocates, and as I explained in a recent message to the Law School community:  “The Law School has an “all-comers” policy, which means that every student group must allow any student to join and all student organized events must be open to all students.”  I know of no instance in which this has been violated or there has been any discrimination against Jews.  I have been in regular contact with our Jewish students about this.

Mr. Marcus points out and identifies some student groups that adopted a statement drafted by Law Students for Justice In Palestine condemning Israel.  But what he does not mention is that only a handful of student groups out of over 100 at Berkeley Law did this.  He also does not mention that in a letter to the leaders of student groups I expressed exactly his message:  excluding speakers on the basis of their viewpoint is inconsistent with our commitment to free speech and condemning the existence of Israel is a form of anti-Semitism.

Finally, it is important to recognize that law student groups have free speech rights, including to express messages that I and others might find offensive.

Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley School of Law

Kenneth L. Marcus Responds:

Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a distinguished constitutional law scholar, responds that we should be less concerned about the formal and official exclusion of Zionists from appearing as speakers before nine Berkeley law student organizations. I couldn’t disagree more.  And based on the overwhelming support my article has received, including much international attention, it appears others vehemently disagree as well.

Chemerinsky defends Berkeley Law, my alma mater, on the ground that other Berkeley law student groups have not amended their bylaws to exclude Zionist speakers. This in and of itself is a highly concerning argument. Would it be okay for only 5% or 10% of the campus to be segregated? What percentage of the Berkeley campus should be open to all? Shouldn’t it be 100%? And what is the right number of doors that should be closed to students of any race or ethnicity: isn’t it zero?

Chemerinsky misses the point when he insists that all clubs admit Jewish students as members. No one denies this. Nevertheless, an unmistakable signal is sent to those same students when they are told that they would be barred from appearing as invited speakers. This sends a clear signal: Jews are not welcome, unless they deny their support for Israel which, for many, is an integral element of Jewish identity.

In addition, Chemerinsky’s free speech message misses the point. Excluding Zionists is not like excluding Republicans and environmentalists. It is not just viewpoint discrimination. If a Democratic club amended their bylaws to prohibit Republican speakers from appearing before them, we could accept their right to do so. We might regret that they are restricting the possibility of dialogue. We might prefer the approach of those law student groups that seek balanced presentations, in order to advance civil dialogue and promote learning. But we wouldn’t consider this to be a civil rights issue.

When persons are excluded on the basis of their ethnic or ancestral identity, however, we must respond differently. It would not be acceptable for students to adopt bylaws banning Black or Chinese speakers, perhaps with an exception for Black or Chinese students who agree to criticize their communities. This would immediately be recognized as exclusionary conduct, not protected speech. And we would not accept the response that these groups permit Black or Chinese members, as long as these minorities do not wish to appear as speakers. We would recognize it as rank bigotry; and we would reject it.

While I am pleased to see that Dean Chemerinsky has written a letter, it would be better to see him take action. Discrimination should have no place at the University of California, or at any institution of higher learning. Those who care about free speech should protect it fiercely, but that does not mean invoking it where it does not apply. To do so cheapens the value of free speech, as well as providing intolerable barriers to equal opportunity. Those who want to talk about Israel should be free to do so, regardless of their perspective; they should not silence one side of the debate. And they should certainly not use this as an excuse to restrict participation of any ethnic or religious group.

Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which has represented Jewish students in the New Paltz, Tufts, and USC cases discussed above. He served as the 11th Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights.

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones

➤Return to Top of Page

KM@ Federalist Society Events

• Bio: Kenneth L. Marcus | The Federalist Society

• K. Marcus, Charles Murray, J.C. Hallman, Cancel Culture+Higher Education 

• Cancel Culture and Higher Education

• K. Marcus, Moderator: College Admissions After SFFA

• Executive Branch Civil Rights Update- Kenneth Marcus

• K. Marcus, Moderator. DEI in the Executive Branch -Regulatory Transparency Project

• DEI in the Executive Branch

• Arguing Affirmative Action is REVERSE Discrimination (ergo should have never been made legislation in the first place?) - Hans Von Spakovskyr rails against reverse discrimination.

Quotes from Heil Hans Von Sapkovskyrnof Heritage Foundation 

@ Marcus-moderated FEDSOC DEI event

• “[the takeaway from DEI federal] training was that if you use any of these phrases you are a racist. That this is part of uh white supremacy that all lives matter if you believe in color blindness and meritocracy you are a white racist

• If you deny White Privilege if you believe in promotion based on Merit if you are in any way against illegal aliens coming into the country and want enforcement of our immigration laws if you believe in English only initiatives if you believe in celebrating Columbus Day if you talk about American exceptionalism all of these phrases came straight out of this training session for federal employees out of slides so if you think that's not going on it is and just one final thing no one's really mentioned.

• This Devon mentioned and Ken Marcus mentioned the Harvard case-- Think about what that case was about you know colleges were discriminating on the basis of race in favor of some and against others and the idea that students for example who had worked hard all through High School took part in community and other activities had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what happened decades ago should be discriminated against in their admissions based on the color of their skin is not just a violation of civil rights laws but is morally reprehensible and what did the president say after this decision came out?

• He said that he urged universities to ignore the Supreme Court's decision and you had presidents of colleges Harvard and elsewhere saying oh yeah we're going to find a way around this you know what it reminded me of it's eerily similar to the southern Manifesto. [again, always charges of reverse discrimination, nullifying the intent of the law]”

➤Return to Top of Page

KM@ LawFare - Attacking Human Rights

• Suing Santa Ana School District to Block ‘Ethnic Studies’ American Jewish Committee Joins Suit Against California School District Over Antisemitic Content | AJC

• Broad Jewish Community – ADL, AJC, Brandeis Center, Conference of Presidents, JFNA, Hillel, ICC – Instructs 500+ Universities of Legal Obligation to Protect Jewish Students From SJP 10/12 Day of Resistance

Hadassah Stands Against Discrimination of Israel: Joins the Brandeis Center in Support of Texas Anti-BDS Law

Ken Marcus

Positioning Anti-Semitism as combating "Racial Minorities, Equity, Equality under the law, Communism, & Radical Left, Woke" 

Publications / Interviews (Part A)

• The Definition of Anti-Semitism: by Kenneth L. Marcus

• The Legally Binding Character of (IHRA) Definition of Anti-Semitism by Kenneth L. Marcus

• AntiSemitism Defintion Paper by Ken Marcus. 

• K. Marcus, Demonizing “Left” Biden Flummoxed by Challenge of Antisemitism From His Party’s Left | The New York Sun

• 
  

• War on College Campuses

• 2007. "Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act " by Kenneth L. MarcusRE K. Marcus, Page 152, USCCR 2019 Report BEYOND SUSPENSIONS

For instance, the Dignity in Schools Campaign (DSC) stated its opposition to Kenneth Marcus’ nomination to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights for the U.S. Department of Education due to his written and spoken desire to limit the use of “disparate impact” claims, 855 despite the fact that these claims are considered an essential method for identifying and addressing discipline policies that appear “neutral” but have a discriminatory impact on students of color

Pubs Against Affirmative Action

“He publicly boasted that one of his first acts in office was rescinding Obama-era guidelines on how schools could use affirmative action to increase diversity in their programs.” New York Times 27 July 2020

Opposing Affirmative Action as Reverse Racism-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard 

Amicus Brief filed by Brandeis Lawfare Center,  Ken Marcus  Oyez Scotusblog

K. Marcus, DIVERSITY AND RACE-NEUTRALITY, Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, 2008

K. Marcus. Responds to Questions on the Record during the Nomination process for OCR.

(Doc retrieved from Insidehigherhed)
K. Marcus, Applauds Gutting of Affirmative Action 

Supreme Court guts affirmative action | Courthouse News Service

Kenneth L. Marcus, who previously served as assistant secretary of education for civil rights, commended the court for what he described as a bold ruling based on moral clarity. 

“Harvard’s plan was developed, at its outset, with an intent to limit enrollment of Jewish students and has created continuing inequities for Asian Americans over time,” said Marcus, chairman at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, in a statement

Before Asian Americans sued Harvard, the school once tried restricting the number of Jews - The Washington Post By Ian Shapira | October 15, 2018

Publications / Interviews (Part B)

Not a Scholar, Ken is mostly published in journals of propaganda founded by or influenced by himself.

SOURCE: https://www.linkedin.com/in/klmarcus/details/publications/

• “Antisemitism in North American Higher Education" in Steven K. Baum, Neil J. Kressel, Forette Cohen-Abady and Steven Leonard Jacobs, Antisemitism in North America: New World, Old Hate (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill). 2016

• ****The Definition of Anti-Semitism, Oxford University Press September 1, 2015

What is anti-Semitism? The Definition of Anti-Semitism is the first book-length study to explore this central question in the context of the new anti-Semitism. Previous efforts to define 'anti-Semitism' have been complicated by the disreputable origins of the term, the discredited sources of its etymology, the diverse manifestations of the concept, and the contested politics of its applications. Nevertheless the task is an important one, not only because definitional clarity is required for the term to be understood, but also because the current conceptual confusion prevents resolution of many incidents in which anti-Semitism is manifested. The Definition of Anti-Semitism explores the various ways in which anti-Semitism has historically been defined, demonstrates the weaknesses in prior efforts, and develops a new definition of anti-Semitism, especially in the context of the 'new anti-Semitism' in American higher education.

• "Contemporary Anti-Semitism in American Higher Education"in Donald Altschiller, ed., Hate Crimes: A Reference Handbook (Third Ed.) (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO). 2015

• "Religious Rights, Religious Discrimination" in Nawal Ammar, ed., Muslims in U.S. Prisons: People, Policy, Practice (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers). 2015

• "The Ideology of the New Antisemitism" in Alvin H. Rosenfeld, ed., Deciphering the New Antisemitism (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press). 2015

• "Is BDS Antisemitic?" in Cary Nelson and Gabriel Noah Brahm, eds., The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel (Chicago and New York: MLA Members for Scholars Rights/Wayne State University Press). 2014

• "Three Conceptions of Religious Freedom" in Yedidia Stern, Hanoch Dagan and Shahar Lifshitz, eds., Religion and Human Rights Discourse (Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute). 2014

• "The Definition of Antisemitism" in Charles A. Small, ed., Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity (Leiden, The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism,Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers). 2013

• Special Issue of the  Apr 2012

• Guest edited the new JSA issue (Vol. 3, No. 2) on campus anti-Semitism, featuring important new scholarship by Gabriel Brahm, Leila Beckwith, Richard Cravatts, Linda Maizels, and Kenneth Lasson.

• "Accusation in a Mirror" Loyola Chicago Law Review (2012) Mar 2012

• "Hostile Environment: Campus Antisemitism as a Civil Rights Violation" in Eunice G. Pollack, ed., Antisemitism on the Campus (Boston: Academic Studies Press). 2011

• "The New OCR Antisemitism Policy" Journal for the Study of Antisemitism 2011

• Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America, Cambridge University Press 2010

What does it mean to be Jewish? This ancient question has become a pressing civil rights controversy. Despite a recent resurgence of anti-Semitic incidents on American college campuses, the U.S. Department of Education's powerful Office for Civil Rights has been unable to protect Jewish students. This failure has been a problem not of execution but of conceptualization. The OCR has been unable to address anti-Jewish harassment because it lacks a coherent conception of either Jewish identity or anti-Jewish hatred. Given jurisdiction over race and national origin but not religion, federal agents have had to determine whether Jewish Americans constitute a race or national origin group. They have been unable to do so. This has led to enforcement paralysis, as well as explosive internal confrontations and recriminations within the federal government. This book examines the legal and policy issues behind the ambiguity involved with civil rights protections for Jewish students. 

• "Jailhouse Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim Discrimination in the American Prison System" 1 Race and Social Problems 36. Mar 2009

• "Introduction" to Gary A. Tobin, Aryeh K. Weinberg and Jenna Ferer, The UnCivil University (2d ed.) (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books). 2009

• "Jurisprudence of the New Anti-Semitism" 44 Wake Forest University Law Review 371. 2009

• "The Right Frontier for Civil Rights Reform" 19 George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. 2009

• "The War Between Disparate Impact and Equal Protection" Cato Supreme Court Review. 2009

• "Privileging and Protecting Schoolhouse Religion" 37 Journal of Law & Education 505. Oct 2008

• "'Serious Consideration' of Race-Neutral Alternatives" Catholic University Law Review 991 (with George La Noue). 2008

• "Diversity and Race-Neutrality" Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy 163. 2008 [probably not peer-reviewed…]

• "Higher Education, Harassment, and First Amendment Opportunism" William & Mary Bill of Rights Law Journal 2008

• "Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964" William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 837, partially reprinted as The Resurgence of Campus Anti-Semitism, 37 Current Psychology 206. Feb 2007

• "The Most Important Right We Think We Have But Don't: Freedom from Religious Discrimination in Education" Nevada Law Journal. 2006

Honors & Awards (Propagandist Award)

• Recognized as a member of the "Forward 50"

The Forward's list honoring the 50 American Jews who made the most significant impact on the news in the past year.

KM@ IHRA Antisemitism Definition as Censorship

➤Return to Top of Page

KM@ Federalist Society Events

• Bio: Kenneth L. Marcus | The Federalist Society

• K. Marcus, Charles Murray, J.C. Hallman, Cancel Culture+Higher Education 

• Cancel Culture and Higher Education

• K. Marcus, Moderator: College Admissions After SFFA

• Executive Branch Civil Rights Update- Kenneth Marcus

• K. Marcus, Moderator. DEI in the Executive Branch -Regulatory Transparency Project

• DEI in the Executive Branch

• Arguing Affirmative Action is REVERSE Discrimination (ergo should have never been made legislation in the first place?) - Hans Von Spakovskyr rails against reverse discrimination.

Quotes from Heil Hans Von Sapkovskyrnof Heritage Foundation 

@ Marcus-moderated FEDSOC DEI event

• “[the takeaway from DEI federal] training was that if you use any of these phrases you are a racist. That this is part of uh white supremacy that all lives matter if you believe in color blindness and meritocracy you are a white racist

• If you deny White Privilege if you believe in promotion based on Merit if you are in any way against illegal aliens coming into the country and want enforcement of our immigration laws if you believe in English only initiatives if you believe in celebrating Columbus Day if you talk about American exceptionalism all of these phrases came straight out of this training session for federal employees out of slides so if you think that's not going on it is and just one final thing no one's really mentioned.

• This Devon mentioned and Ken Marcus mentioned the Harvard case-- Think about what that case was about you know colleges were discriminating on the basis of race in favor of some and against others and the idea that students for example who had worked hard all through High School took part in community and other activities had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what happened decades ago should be discriminated against in their admissions based on the color of their skin is not just a violation of civil rights laws but is morally reprehensible and what did the president say after this decision came out?

• He said that he urged universities to ignore the Supreme Court's decision and you had presidents of colleges Harvard and elsewhere saying oh yeah we're going to find a way around this you know what it reminded me of it's eerily similar to the southern Manifesto. [again, always charges of reverse discrimination, nullifying the intent of the law]”

➤Return to Top of Page

KM@ LawFare - Attacking Human Rights

• Suing Santa Ana School District to Block ‘Ethnic Studies’ American Jewish Committee Joins Suit Against California School District Over Antisemitic Content | AJC

• Broad Jewish Community – ADL, AJC, Brandeis Center, Conference of Presidents, JFNA, Hillel, ICC – Instructs 500+ Universities of Legal Obligation to Protect Jewish Students From SJP 10/12 Day of Resistance

Hadassah Stands Against Discrimination of Israel: Joins the Brandeis Center in Support of Texas Anti-BDS Law

Leadership

Alyza D. Lewin

President

Alyza D. Lewin is the President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (“LDB”), a non-profit organization established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all.

Click For More

Kenneth L. Marcus

Founder and Chairman

Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for Liberty & Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and author of The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press) and Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America (Cambridge University Press).

Advisory Board

Adam S. Feuerstein

Principal, PricewaterhouseCoopers

Adam S. Feuerstein is a Principal at PricewaterhouseCoopers and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law. His practice encompasses a broad range of transactional and tax planning matters.

Richard Cravatts

Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., author of four books, including Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews, is President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), an organization with 30,000 members worldwide.

As a professor for the past 15 years, he has taught over 21 courses at 14 universities in Florida and Massachusetts.

Click For More

Tevi Troy

Tevi Troy is a former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and a best-selling presidential historian. His latest book is Fight House: Rivalries in the White House from Truman to Trump.

Click For More

L. Rachel Lerman, Esq.

Vice Chair and General Counsel

Rachel Lerman (“Rachel”) is Vice Chair and General Counsel of LDB and a member of its Board of Directors. Before Joining LDB as Senior Counsel in July 2021, she was a partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where she co-chaired the firm’s national appellate practice group. Her practice focused on appellate law and trial strategy in complex civil cases in state and federal courts nationwide.

Click For More

Judd A. Serotta, Esq

Cozen O’Connor

Mr. Serotta counsels high net worth individuals and families on protecting and preserving their wealth and assets. Mr. Serotta has considerable experience assisting families in the preparation of wills, revocable (living) trusts, and irrevocable trusts, in addition to other documents designed to assist in the prudent transmission and preservation of our clients’ wealth.

Click For More

Mitchell Webber, Esq.

Mr. Webber is a counsel at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, where he focuses on internal and government investigations and commercial litigation. He previously served in the Office of White House Counsel as part of its oversight and investigations group. Mr. Webber graduated from Yale College in 2003 and Harvard Law School in 2006.

Mr. Webber has worked for a number of years on litigation and public policy matters concerning anti-Semitism and the anti-Israel boycott, divest, and sanctions movement. In January 2021, Mr. Webber was appointed to a five-year term on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, the governing body of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Joshua Swidler

Josh Swidler is currently the Chief Investment Officer and Director of Capital Markets at Teamshares, an investment platform that purchases small businesses from retiring owners. Prior to joining Teamshares, he spent 11 years at Elliott Management as a Senior Portfolio Manager, responsible for European Structured Credit, Real Estate, and Non-Performing Loans, and then two years as the head of US Private Financials. Before joining Elliott, Mr. Swidler was a Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, working eight years in New York, and five years in London, all in the Securitized Products business.  He graduated with a degree in Social Studies from Harvard College.

Contacts for Advisory Board

Tel: +1-202-223-7359

Fax: +1-202-315-3973

mwebber@paulweiss.com

Washington

https://www.paulweiss.com/professionals/partners-and-counsel/mitchell-d-webber

jserotta@cozen.com

Philadelphia

(215) 665-2795

(215) 701-2005

https://www.cozen.com/people/bios/serotta-judd

Lora Rachel Lerman (aka Lora Rachel Lerman) #193080

License Status: Active

Address: 13031 Villosa Pl, Apt 104, Playa Vista, CA 90094-6500

Phone: 310-498-3414  |  Fax: Not Available

Email: Not Available  |  Website: Not Available 

https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/193080

Episode 46: L. Rachel Lerman

General Counsel and Vice-Chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

00:50:28

https://www.portiaprojectpodcast.com/episodes/episode46-l-rachel-lerman

Women Of Influence : Attorneys – L. Rachel Lerman

April 27, 2021

https://labusinessjournal.com/advertorials/women-influence-attorneys-l-rachel-lerman/

Rachel Lerman – co-chair of Barnes & Thornburg’s Appeals and Critical Motions group – advises clients on trial, mediation, and appellate strategy in complex civil cases, and handles writs and appeals in state and federal courts nationwide. Beyond drafting policy arguments in cases involving issues of first impression, Lerman openly shares that what she enjoys most about her work is putting difficult problems and thorny questions of law into language that a generalist judge and her clerks appreciate. Widely known for her outstanding writing and communication abilities, Lerman identifies and articulates the issues and merits in a way that will interest and appeal to appellate and Supreme Court judges. She has played a lead role in bet-the-company cases in a wide variety of industries and practice areas, including complex commercial disputes, labor and employment, insurance recovery, bankruptcy, trademark, tribal, and utilities litigation.

Press Release:  Barnes & Thornburg Expands Los Angeles Office by Adding Appellate Litigator Rachel Lerman

https://btlaw.com/insights/news/2014/barnes-thornburg-expands-los-angeles-office-by-adding-appellate-litigator-rachel-lerman

April 17, 2014 Los Angeles 

Barnes & Thornburg Expands Los Angeles Office by Adding Appellate Litigator Rachel Lerman

April 17, 2014 Los Angeles

– Barnes & Thornburg LLP announced today that L. Rachel Lerman has joined the firm’s Litigation Department as a partner in the Los Angeles office. Previously, Lerman was a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

Lerman focuses her practice on appellate and trial strategy in complex civil cases. She has handled more than 100 appeals in state and federal courts nationwide in a broad range of practice areas, including commercial litigation, bankruptcy, patent, trademark and trade secret law, insurance, white collar, and family law.

“Rachel has a great deal of experience working with trial counsel and has more than 20 years of experience litigating complex matters and handling all aspects of state and federal appeals,” said Bill McErlean, chair of the firm’s Litigation Department. “Her arrival immediately strengthens our West Coast litigation capabilities and our national trial practice.”

“As our office continues to grow through the addition of impressive legal talent, we’re pleased to welcome a practitioner of Rachel’s caliber to the firm,” added David Allen, managing partner of Barnes & Thornburg’s Los Angeles office.

The Los Angeles office currently has 31 attorneys who practice in a number of areas, including complex litigation, labor and employment, intellectual property and corporate matters. In addition, the group includes an Entertainment and Music practice that represents some of the most recognizable artists, brands and companies in the entertainment industry. The group has experience in the business needs of the advertising, film, live events, sports, music, technology, television and videogame industries.

About L. Rachel Lerman

Lerman has received numerous awards and honors, including selection to the Los Angeles Magazine “Super Lawyers” list every year from 2003-2014 and receipt of the ACLU’s First Amendment Award in 2012. She is admitted to practice law in the state of California and before the U.S. Supreme Court, all federal Courts of Appeals, and the California District Courts. She previously clerked for the late Honorable T.G. Nelson for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lerman is active on community and professional boards, including the executive board of the Constitutional Rights Foundation. She also is a member of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers and the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Appellate Courts committee, and frequently volunteers as a mock trial judge and coach for college and high school students.

Lerman earned her B.A. from Yale College, her M.A. and M.F.A. from Syracuse University, and her J.D. from University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law. She advanced to doctoral candidacy at U.C. Berkeley in Jurisprudence & Social Policy. During law school, Lerman served as an editor for the Berkeley Women’s Law Journal and was a Schurman Scholar for International & Comparative Law at the Universitæt Heidelberg in Heidelberg, Germany.

L. Rachel Lerman

Partner

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/453204617/202312579349300321/IRS990