On the surface, the UC system adopting a definition of anti-Semitism seems like a no-brainer. After all, the University should oppose all forms of racism and discrimination, and have meaningful definitions to guide its policies of enforcement. However, the definition of anti-Semitism currently under consideration comes with political strings attached.
The definition under question is commonly called the “State Department definition” and is based off of a discredited European Union definition. Those who are advocating for its use at the UC level point out that as a government definition, it should have bearing on one of the United States’ largest public university systems. Yet as Kenneth Stern, the author of the aforementioned European Union definition, has stated, this use of the State Department definition “would do more harm than good.” In fact, he argues, “to enshrine such a definition on a college campus is an ill-advised idea that will make matters worse, and not only for Jewish students; it would also damage the university as a whole.”
A coordinated group of pro-Israel advocates, led by the AMCHA initiative, is behind this push for the UC system to adopt the definition. Despite their claims about advocating for Jewish students, these organizations see this definition as a way to stifle speech in support of Palestinian rights across the UC system. This definition includes clauses that define anti-Semitism as “demonizing, delegitimizing, and applying a double standard to Israel” – clauses that are unenforceable, and further, if used by the UC system would unconstitutionally limit political speech of students and faculty, and would dangerously conflate the identities of American Jewish students with the actions of the Israeli government.
As Stern points out, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, director of the AMCHA Initiative, has stated clearly, “that advocacy in favor of Boycotts/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) against Israel would be classified as antisemitic, as would the erection of fake walls imitating Israel’s separation barrier. So if the definition is adopted, presumably administrators would be expected to label such political speech as antisemitic, or face challenges (political and perhaps legal) from AMCHA and its colleagues that they were not doing their jobs.”
The UC system should, rightly, stand up against racism in all of its forms, and work to create a university system that includes all of its students. Defining anti-Semitism in this way is a barrier towards that goal. I am not alone in thinking this; Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, one of the first 10 women rabbis in the US and long-time peace educator, notes that “the proposed definition of anti-Semitism does not reflect the understanding of tens of thousands of Jews who have adopted nonviolent direct action to challenge Israeli militarism.” Rabbi Gottleib further points out, “the emphasis [on the State of Israel] in this proposal will have a chilling impact on the work of justice. Noncooperation with militarism is not anti-semitic.” As many Jewish Studies scholars point out, critique is a part of the Jewish tradition, and as evidenced by the work of Palestine Legal, to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is to chill political speech and risk violating constitutional principles.
While I applaud Stern’s strong stance for free speech and academic freedom, I do take issue with several points in his articulation of anti-Semitism. For example, he states that “if a diplomat says that Israel – a member state of the United Nations – should not exist as the nation state of the Jewish people, it is appropriate for the Department to State to label that antisemitism.” I am curious about that phrase, “the nation state of the Jewish people.” Many citizens of Israel, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, have strong critiques of the ways Jewish religious law is applied in Israel, not to mention the 20-25% of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish, and are treated as second class citizens by the Jewish state. Is advocating for secular democracy then anti-Semitic? That question seems to be a rich one for discussion in a college classroom, or within a student organization. This definition would limit that possibility, and as a result, limit the possibilities of the university itself.
Instead of accepting this dangerous and unenforceable definition, the University of California should take a strong stance on academic freedom and free speech, and in particular, for a healthy and robust discussion of Israel and Palestine. Invite speakers from across the political spectrum, including those who advocate for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. Support faculty who teach on and research Israel and Palestine. Protect students’ constitutional right to protest, which includes creative, performance-based, or other non-violent, if confrontational, methods designed to raise awareness.
The status quo in Palestine and Israel is unsustainable. Only by encouraging the full range of discussion on the subject will progress be made towards ensuring safety and freedom for all people in the region. The UC system has a chance to make that progress possible by rejecting this definition.
Tallie Ben Daniel received her BA at UC Santa Cruz and her PhD at UC Davis. She is currently the Academic Advisory Council Coordinator at Jewish Voice for Peace.
